IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10801 of 2002 NAND KISHORE SINGH Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Accountant General, Patna. 2. The S.P., Giridih. 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Office of Accountant General of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Patna. ……… Respondents. For the Petitioner : Sri Ram Hriday Prasad, Adv. For the State : Pritish Kumar Lal, A.C. to S.C.XI ----------- 3/ 28/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the Accountant General, Bihar. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Bihar Police. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-inspector of Police on 26.4.1980. He retired from service on 1.7.1998. After his superannuation, at the stage of fixation of his retiral benefits, the office of the Accountant General, Bihar on 4.12.2001, vide annexure- 1, wrote to his employers that from his service records it appeared that he had not cleared the ‘Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination’ and, therefore, his pension be re- fixed accordingly and then forwarded to the office of Accountant General, Bihar for fixation of pension and steps for recovery of excess salary paid be also taken. Learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, Bihar submits that the pension and gratuity has 2 been authorized, but he is unable to inform this Court whether it has been authorized sans the Hindi ‘Noting and Drafting Examination’ or with it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon C.W.J.C. No.6183/96 (Arjun Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others.) where in a similar case where a person retired from the post of Sub-inspector of Police and whose pension papers were returned for the requirement of not having passed the ‘Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination’ questioning the increments granted, this Court accepted the submission that considering the nature of duties of a Sub-inspector, to maintain law and order, non-passing of the examination cannot be held to be fatal, even if applicable. In that view of the matter, the order dated 4.12.2001 loses its relevance in context of the decision of this Court in the aforesaid Arjun Singh’s case (supra). The order dated 4.12.2001 requiring re-fixation of the pay-scale of the petitioner and ordering recovery for reasons of non-passing of the ‘Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination’, is therefore, held to be bad in law and is set aside to that extent only. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)