IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2094 of 2010 1. RAM PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE NATHUN SINGH R/O VILL- LAWABAR, P.S-KOTHI, DISTT- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPRTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (YANTRIC) YANTRIC UPBHAG PATH, NIRMAN VIBHAG, BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (YANTRIC) RAILWAY UCCHA PATH YANTRIC ANCHAL, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RASTRIYA UCCHA PATH YANTRIC PRAMANDAL, DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTT- ROHTAS ----------- 2/ 10/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the State on 9.8.2010. The same is not available on record. The Court therefore requested the learned counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. The office is directed to trace the same out and place on record. The petitioner claims to have been appointed in the work charged establishment at Hazaribagh on 1.5.1972 on the post of cleaner. On 7.2.1981 he was promoted on the post of plant operator in the pay scale of Rs.205-284. It was then realized that there was no post of plant operator. The matter appears to have engaged - 2 - the attention of the respondents for correction in the name of the post as evident from the subsequent order dated 21.4.1998 converting the categorization of petitioner from plant operator to batching plant operator awarding the pay scale of Rs.250-284 from 7.12.1981 the date he was appointed as a plant operator. The respondents have now sought to recover the wages paid to the petitioner as a batching plant operator from 7.12.1981 on the premise that he was appointed on 7.12.1981 on the post of plant operator, a non-existent post when he came to be appointed as a batching plant operator on 21.4.1998. The counter affidavit of the respondents supports the impugned order dated 9.11.2009. This Court is satisfied from the recitals contained in the order dated 9.11.2009 that the respondents do not question the legality of the appointment of the petitioner. It is more than apparent from the letter dated 21.4.1988 that there was an error on the part of the respondents in designating the name of the post of the petitioner as plant operator and batching plant operator. Conversion of the name was under their consideration. It is thus administrative conversion that was done on 21.4.1988. It is apparent that the petitioner was working as a batching plant operator from 7.2.1981 - 3 - and not as a plant operator. This aspect of the matter has not been discussed in the impugned order dated 9.11.2009 or explained in the counter affidavit. The order dated 9.11.2009 is therefore not sustainable in law. Recovery made, if any, is directed to be refunded forthwith. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)