IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4714 of 2005 ====================================================== Maheshwar Prasad Sharan, s/o- Shri Krishnadeo Prasad Sharan, r/o- Road No. 4, Mohalla- Maripur, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, Town and District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road. 3. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur Electrical Supply Circle, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Chapra Electrical Supply Circle, Chapra. 6. The Accounts Officer, Chapra Electrical Supply Circle, Chapra. 7. The Accounts Officer, Muzaffarpur Electrical Supply Circle, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 4 04-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.1998 (Annexure-2) passed by the Superintending Engineer of the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short “ the Board) whereby excess amount paid by way of increment without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination has been directed to be Patna High Court CWJC No.4714 of 2005 (4) dt.04-11-2011 2 recovered in installments. Petitioner was initially appointed on 7.8.1980 as Junior Accounts Clerk in Electrical Supply Division, Muzaffarpur. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no departmental proceeding pending against him and as such he was allowed to draw increments. In the year 1994, he appeared at the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and ultimately passed the same on 5.6.1995 (Annexure-1). It is contended that although there is a resolution of the Board bearing No. 537 dated 16.7.1979 making it compulsory for the employees of the Board to pass/clear the aforesaid examination before an employee can be considered for grant of increment but the aforesaid resolution was not enforced by the respondent in respect of several employees of the Board and he was allowed to draw enhanced salary after adding increment. It is contended that in similar circumstance, one of the petitioner moved this Court against the recovery of excess amount paid by way of increment on account of non-passing of the aforesaid examination which was allowed whereagainst the Board approached the Hon’ble Apex Court which was dismissed. He relies in this regard on the judgment rendered in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board versus Bijay Bahadur & Ors since reported in 2000 (10) S.C.C. 99. Patna High Court CWJC No.4714 of 2005 (4) dt.04-11-2011 3 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board. It is contended that a Division Bench of this Court having noticed the ratio laid down in (2000) 10 S.C.C. 99 has taken a view that the aforesaid judgment was passed in particular facts of the case and as such does not lay down ratio which can be applied in another case. It has been contended that after having noticed the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has approved such stand of the respondent Board by dismissing the letters patent appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. Reliance in this regard has been placed at Annexure-C. On a perusal of paragraph 10 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court reported in (2000) 10 S.C.C. 99, it appears that the Apex Court has restricted the order to the facts of the said case only. On the contrary, on perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench (Annexure-C), it appears that this Court, having noticed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director and Others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2776, State of Punjab and Ors versus Devinder Singh and Others (1998) 9 S.C.C. 595 as also Union of India and Others vs. Sujatha Vadachalam (Smt.) and another (2000) 9 S.C.C. 137, has not found any fault with the action of the Board in recovering the Patna High Court CWJC No.4714 of 2005 (4) dt.04-11-2011 4 excess amount paid by way of increment without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. There is no controversy that the petitioner had not passed the aforesaid examination till 1995. There is also no controversy that the aforesaid mistake was detected and the order of recovery was passed while the petitioner was still in service. In fact, the petitioner is still in service. There is also no controversy that the amount has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. In view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 842 of 2004 (Annexure-C), I am inclined to dismiss the writ application. I order accordingly. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)