IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11812 of 2009 SHEO NATH PRASAD YADAVA, son of Sri Mahadeo Rai, resident of Mohallah Dahiyawan Tola, P.O. Chapra, P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran, retired Bill Clerk, Electricity Supply Sub- Division, Chapra, under Electricity Supply Division, Chapra, At & P.O. & P.S.-Chapra, District Saran. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR. 8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PERSONAL), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR. 9. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, CHAPRA. 10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUPPLY DIVISION, SITAMARHI. 11. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUPPLY DIVISION, CHAPRA WEST, CHAPRA. 12. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELECTRICITY SUB-DIVISION, CHAPRA WEST, CHAPRA. 13. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUB- DIVISION,CHAPRA, WEST, CHAPRA. 14. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, CHAPRA. ---Respondents ----------- 6. 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of recovery of Rs.64,734/-, which has been made from his retiral dues on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. 2 The case of the petitioner is that the increment in salary was allowed to him by the Board. It is submitted that the respondent-Board, vide its Resolution No.537 dated 16.9.1979, adopted the similar resolution of the State Government, whereby a decision was taken to the effect that in the event of non-passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, the employee concerned shall not be allowed increment. It is further submitted that the petitioner, however, received the increments in the salary and it was never made known to the employees concerned that the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination is required to be passed or that any such examination was being taken to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Bill Clerk on 31st of December, 2007 and while the process for settling the payment of the retiral dues was taken up, the petitioner could learn through letter no.668 dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure 2) issued by the Joint Secretary of the Board to the concerned Electrical Executive Engineer, Sitamarhi seeking information about the amount recovered from the petitioner which were paid to him due to non-passing of the aforesaid examination. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court for a direction that the respondent-Board is not entitled to recover any amount after his retirement on account of such payment having been made though there is no fault or any misrepresentation on his part. It is submitted that the employees similarly situated 3 having similar grievances approached this Court in several writ petitions, one of such writ application, being CWJC No.8005 of 1996, was disposed of as per the order dated 30th of June, 1997, as contained in Annexure 1, and the similar matter in issue at the instance of the respondent-Board fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board Vrs. Bijay Bhadur, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 99, wherein it has been held that no such increment allowed to the concerned employees is recoverable on the ground of non-passing of such examination in the facts similar to the present case. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board, wherein in paragraph 8 it has been stated to the effect that while the petitioner was in service his pay was re-fixed as per clauses (7) and (8) of the Board’s Resolution no.537 dated 16.9.1979 and a total sum of Rs.64,734/-, which was found to have been paid to the petitioner, was recovered from him on account of non-passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having come to know that he was required to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, he cleared the said examination in the year 1995. It is, however, submitted that the issue with regard to as to whether the amount of increment already paid could be recovered or not is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court (Supra) as also the decision of this Court, vide Annexure 1. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board is not in a 4 position to dispute the above propositions in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the above circumstances, considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the admitted position that the increments were paid by the Board on its own, in absence of any material on record suggesting misrepresentation or any fault on the part of the petitioner, the amount to the tune of Rs.64,734/-, which has already been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner, was not recoverable. However, since the amount has been already recovered as stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the same is liable to be refunded back to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (respondent no.3) is hereby directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.64,734/- expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. However, it goes without saying that no further amount, if any, shall be deducted on account of the above. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)