LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.26 OF 2007 ------- Against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2006 passed by Hon’ble Mr Justice Barin Ghosh in CWJC No. 11092 of 2005 ------- 1. Bihar State Electricity Board , Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board , Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board , Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The General Director, Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board , Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer (Store & Purchase), Bihar State Electricity Board , Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Purnia 7. The General Manger cum Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Muzaffarpur 8. The Executive Engineer, Transmission Construction Division, Begusarai 9. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Construction Store, Begusarai Respondents-Appellants Versus Nagendra Prasad Singh son of Yugal Singh resident of village Chandi PO Harauli PS Sadar Hajipur Dist. Vaishali. Petitioner- Respondent -------- For the Appellants: Mrs Namrata Mishra, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr Md Hussamuddin Azad, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. By the order under appeal a learned Single Judge of this court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and has directed for paying back to the writ petitioner within three months, difference of salary i.e. Rs 58,000/- along with such interest as he may be found entitled to as per decision of the Board. The aforesaid amount of Rs 58,000/- was recovered from the salary of the petitioner - 2 - on the ground that there was requirement to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting examination as per resolution of the appellant- Board passed in 1979 but ignoring the said resolution increments were paid to the writ petitioner regularly. Admittedly the writ petitioner passed the said examination in December, 1993 i.e. before 31st March, 1997 but in view of strict policy in the matter adopted by the Board vide resolution dated 17.11.1990 contained in annexure 2, Board decided to recover the increments already granted. Recovery was made from the salary of the writ petitioner also but he challenged such action of the Board through the writ petition in question soon after he superannuated in the year 2004. The writ court has allowed the writ petition in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to at page 2 of the order under appeal. Although citation is not mentioned but parties agree that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Single Judge was in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & another vs Bijay Bhadur & another reported in 2000 (1) SCC 99. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the recovery was made prior to superannuation of the writ petitioner and hence his claim should not have been entertained or allowed on the basis of a writ petition filed after his superannuation. Ordinarily we would have considered the aforesaid submission if the dispute had been between private parties but the State and its authorities are required to act fairly and in the present matter, it is found that the case of the writ petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Bihar State Electricity Board & another vs Bijay Bhadur & another - 3 - (supra). In that case also similar facts and circumstances were noticed and thereafter the Apex Court approved the judgment of this court and held that the increments already granted could not be recovered from the salary of concerned employee. The Apex Court noticed that under resolution dated 16.07.1979, there was a bar on grant of increment as well as promotion till the concerned employees passed the required examination, but the Board not only granted increments but also granted promotion to its employee and subsequently taking a strict view of the matter, it decided to implement such strict view retrospectively by recovering the amount paid by way of increments but without affecting the promotion given contrary to the Resolution of 1979. The Apex Court found that such course of action adopted by the appellant- Board was not in consonance with equity, good conscience, justice and fairness. We have no difficulty in holding that this appeal can not succeed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in similar circumstances in respect of similarly placed employee of the appellant-Board. Hence this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) The Patna High Court The 16th August, 2010 shahid/ NAFR