IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4323 of 2009 Avinash Chandra Singh, son of Sri Deena Nath Singh, Resident of Mohalla: Chini Mill, Police Station Buxar, District: Buxar. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through it’s Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna, near Golghar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna, Visheshwaria Bhawan Secretariat. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle-2, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Rural Works Division No.II, Buxar. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 8.4.2009 Heard Mr. Md. Ataul Haque for the petitioner, and learned assistant counsel to Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate No.7. This writ petition is directed against the office order bearing Memo No.250, dated 14.3.2009 (Annexure-6), issued under the signature of respondent no.5, whereby it has been ordered to recover the money benefit so far paid to the petitioner consequent upon grant of first time-bound promotion, and he shall also not be entitled to the same in future. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of 2 learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner is working as Accounts Clerk under respondent no.5. He was granted first time-bound promotion by order bearing letter No.1516, dated 1.9.1989 (Annexure-1) with certain conditions. The petitioner was denied the future increments leading to his representation which has been rejected by the impugned order. It appears on a perusal of the same that the petitioner was granted the promotion, inter alia, with the condition that he shall pass the accounts examination, till such time the next increments become due to him. The petitioner failed to pass such examination, as a result of which the money benefit consequent upon the promotion has been directed to be recovered and shall also not be paid money benefit in future. 3. It was held as follows in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and others Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad and others, reported in 2001(2) P.L.J.R. 58, that “...money benefit can be recovered in certain circumstances”. The relevant portion of the judgment is 3 reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “...Law is well settled that money benefit paid to an employee in excess of his entitlement should not normally be recovered from him after a long lapse of time, particularly after his superannuation from service. It is, however, subject to two exceptions, namely, if the order granting the money benefit itself stipulates that the same is liable to be recovered if found erroneous at a later stage or is subject to approval by authorities. The second exception is that such a money benefit can be recovered if it is found at any later stage that the same had flowed to the employee on account of fraud, misrepresentation or the like attributable to him.” 4. This judgment fell for consideration of a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Binod Singh Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board (F.B.), reported in 2007 (3) P.L.J.R.398. The Full Bench approved the aforesaid proposition of law with the observations that the examples stated therein were only illustrative. Law is equally well settled that if promotion and/or money benefit has been given to an employee with a condition to be fulfilled by the employee, the same having not fulfilled and attributable to the employee, then the 4 money benefit flowing thereto is liable to be recovered. Such is the position in the present case. The petitioner admittedly did not pass the accounts examination as per the conditions stipulated in the order of promotion. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/