IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11249 of 2002 JAGAT NARAYAN PRASAD Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS For the Petitioner:- Mr. Anand Mohan Verma, Advocate For the Board:- Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate with CWJC No.10086 of 2002 BRIJ NANDAN SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS For the petitioner:- Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate For the B.S.E.B.:- Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate with CWJC No.10722 of 2002 BALESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS For the petitioner :- Mr. Kumar Sunil , Advocate For the B.S.E.B.:- Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate ----------- 04 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents Bihar State Electricity Board. In this batch of writ applications the common issue involved is for grant of increments without passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination and the subsequent passing of the same. The respondent Board has, therefore, decided to recall the increments granted for the period during which the examination had not been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied 2 upon a Division Bench order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1007 of 1997 along with C.W.J.C. No. 4576 of 1997 disposed off on 19.5.1998. Learned counsel for the Board urged that since the Resolution No. 537 dated 16.7.1979 issued in exercise of powers under Section 79 (C ) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1943 made it mandatory that the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination was required to be passed to claim entitlement for annual increment, any error committed in grant of the same to the petitioners for a period that they had not passed the examination is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the impugned order of recovery requires no interference. Learned counsel for the Board has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2001 (2) P.L.J.R. 58 (Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus Madan Mohan Prasad & Others). In the case of Madan Mohan Prasad, relied upon by the respondents, the facts were entirely different. The respondent therein made an application to the Board for pay protection on the submission that his junior had been granted a higher salary. In this background the Board granted him the pay protection with the stipulation that if, 3 subsequently any was detected in the grant the Board reserved the right to annul the order. Subsequently, the higher pay granted to another and in pursuance of which the benefit was granted to the respondent, was itself withdrawn. It was in that background that the Board decided to make deductions from the pay of the respondent of the pay protection granted to him. The case is completely distinguishable on facts. The litigant understands the High Court as an institution. Thus there is a need for consistency in its orders. It would indeed be unfortunate if different Benches were to pass orders on any issue, once settled by an earlier order of this Court. In C.W.J.C. No. 1007 of 1997 and the analogous cased relied upon, the issued was the same for recovery of increments for the period from 16.7.1979 to 19.12.1993 by the Board for reason of non passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. The petitioners, however, subsequently cleared the examination in 1993. The Division Bench took notice of the fact that was no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner for the purpose of increment and that after such long passage of time, there was no justification for 4 recovery, more so, when they had passed the examination subsequently. Now on the facts of the present case also, the petitioners are stated to have subsequently passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. In the said judgment the Division Bench also noticed the objection of the Board placing reliance on C.W.J.C. No. 10975 of 1995 and distinguished the case on facts. Nonetheless, relying on the following passage at paragraph-12 of the same granted relief to the petitioner. “However, the stoppage of annual increments is not cumulative in effect. No sooner the person passed the examination he becomes entitled to the increments as if the stoppage of increments had never taken place and also entitled to all consequential benefits.” Judicial propriety requires this Court to be consistent and to follow the same. These writ applications are allowed with similar directions. It is ordered that no recovery of increments can be effected from the petitioners. The writ applications stand allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)