IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7644 of 2005 SIDHESHWAR NATH PANDEY Son of Late Phulena Pandey, resident of village Sati Asthan, Masauri Police Station Masaurhi, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Department of Water Resources Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary (Establishment) (Irrigation Institute Khagaul) Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri, Sasaram. 5. The Deputy Director Quality Control Division Dehri, Rohtas. 6. The Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna 7. The District Provident Fund Officer, Rohtas. 8. The Treasury Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 9. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Aditya Narain Singh,Adv. Mr.Kundan Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State :- A.C. to A.A.G.-6 For the Accountant General:- Mr. Raj Nandan Pd., Adv. *********** 6 27.10.2009 The petitioner retired from the services of the respondents while serving on the post of Assistant Research Officer with effect from 31.5.2004. It is admitted position that the petitioner was provided 90% pension, 90% gratuity and other retiral benefits. The petitioner came before this Court by way of 2 present writ petition for payment of his balance amount of pension, gratuity, increments with effect from 1993 and re-fixation of his pension, gratuity and arrears thereof after taking into account the increments to which he was entitled. During the pendency of the writ petition an order was passed under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Water Resources bearing Memo No. 4194 dated 21.10.2005 brought on record by way of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 whereby the respondents had inter alia disallowed the benefit of first and second time bound promotion to the petitioner by reason of his non passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination since after his regular appointment on the post of Research Assistant on 2.9.1965. In the same order it was also decided that the petitioner would also not be entitled to any increments after 1993 and that the increments granted to him were illegal and would be recovered from his retiral benefits. The details of the excess payment made to the 3 petitioner has been brought on record by way of Annexure-I/2 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 and whereby a sum of Rs. 2,71,359/-is said to be excessively paid to the petitioner. By reason of the aforementioned development an interlocutory application was filed on behalf of the petitioner bearing I.A. No. 5127 of 2009 seeking permission for amending the prayer portion of the writ petition by incorporation of the prayer for quashing the order dated 21.10.2005 contained in Memo No. 4194 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) which was also annexed to the said interlocutory application as Annexure-7 thereof. The interlocutory application bearing No. 5127 of 2009 seeking the amendment is allowed. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the State and the Accountant General. With the consent of parties this writ petition has been taken up for disposal at the stage of Admission. The entire dispute revolves around the 4 issue as to whether passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination by the petitioner on 30.8.1964 during the period of his service in the work charge establishment under the respondents on the post of General Research Assistant, would be treated as fulfillment of the condition and requirement of passing the said examination in terms of Hindi Examination Rules 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The said Rules have been brought on record by way of Annexure-8 series to the interlocutory application. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did appear and pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 30.8.1964 while serving in the work charge establishment under the respondents. The only dispute raised by the respondents is that since after his appointment in the regular establishment on 2.9.1965 while serving in the work charge establishment, the petitioner ought to have appeared in the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination afresh, notwithstanding he had already appeared and passed the same on 30.8.1964 while serving in the work charge establishment. It is indisputed that there was no break in service. 5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the Rules which have been brought on record vide Annexure-8 series to the interlocutory application and which in no uncertain terms requires each government servant to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination while serving under the State Government. The said Rules no where requires that a government servant serving in the work charge establishment, is again required to appear in the said examination after his confirmation in the regular establishment. On the other hand a communication of the Cabinet Secretariat, Raj Bhasha Department dated 19.6.2008 also enclosed with Annexure 8 series shows that even in cases where a government servant is transferred to any other service of the State Government he is not required to again appear in the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The case of the petitioner is on a better footing inasmuch as while serving in the work charge establishment under the respondents he got confirmation in the regular establishment and there was not even any 6 transfer of service. A perusal of the relevant rules and the communications issued by the Raj Bhasha Department brought on record by Annexure-8 series, in no uncertain terms manifests that passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination by a government servant is a one time exercise and he is not required to repeat the same. In view of the provisions emanating from the Hindi Examination Rules, 1988 and the clarificatory letters of the Rajbhasha Deptt. placed at Annexures 8 series, it is clear that the objections raised by the respondents that the petitioners should have again appeared and passed the said examination after his services were regularized by way of appointment and thereby denying the service benefits to the petitioner was patently arbitrary and unsupported by the Rules. The indisputed fact that the petitioner has passed the Hindi Noting and drafting examination on 30.8.1964 while serving in the work charge establishment followed by his absorption in the regular establishment, is undoubtedly a fulfillment of the condition of 7 passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination as required under the Rules. Having held as above, the petitioner also becomes entitled to all the benefits which accrues to the employees and which have been wrongfully denied to him on the pretext that he did not pass the said examination since after his regular appointment on 2.9.1965. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the order bearing Memo No. 4194 dated 21.10.2005 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and Annexure-7 to the interlocutory application together with the orders passed in consequence thereof is set aside. The order for recovery as contained in Annexure-I/2 dated 12.1.2005 is also set aside. The respondents are directed to refix the pension and gratuity of the petitioner after providing him the increments and the benefits of the time bound promotions to which he was entitled until his retirement and pay the arrears arising by reason of such refixation together with admissible interest, if any, and any other dues found payable to the petitioner. This exercise is to be carried out 8 within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )