IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9787 of 2006 UDAYA KANT JHA, SON OF LATE TILESHWAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. BIRPUR, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY- CUM-COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. 6. HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT BAIDNATH PRASAD SINGH, HIGH SCHOOL, BIRPUR, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. ----------- 2. 11.08.2009 A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to withdrawal of the increments allowed to the petitioner, permissible to the employees who pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. It is submitted that the petitioner was allowed and availed the said increments till the date of his retirement. After retirement, the respondents have withdrawn the increments and consequently, the 2 pensionary benefits has also been affected adversely as also passed the order for recovery of the amounts towards the increments which were allowed to the petitioner after 1983. The petitioner retired on 31.01.1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid increments were correctly given to him and since petitioner had attained the age of more than 50 years, as such, he was not required to appear in the said examination. Besides the above, the aforesaid order vide Memo No. 1358 -61 dated 21st of February 1990 as contained in Annexure-2 was passed without hearing the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State submits that in case, petitioner files a representation, the same shall be considered without delay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General Submits that respondent – State is obliged to consider the request of the petitioner as per law. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support 3 of her claim alongwith certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks from today. In case such representation is filed, respondent no. 2 shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievance of the petitioner could be settled without delay. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)