IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12181 of 2003 Ram Binod Singh, son of Sri Ram Tawakya Singh, resident of Village - Masaurha, P S - Paliganj, Dist - Patna - Petitioner Versus 1) The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna 2) The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 3) The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 4) Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, New Punaichak, Barrak No 1, Patna - 23 5) Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Khagaul, Patna 6) The Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Shivaji Pandey, Sr Advocate For the respondents : M/s Vinay Kirti Singh & Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates *** 12 21.07.2009 The petitioner is an employee of the Electricity Board. Under the service rules of the Electricity Board, a person is not entitled to increment after certain stages unless he passes the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination which is held departmentally. Petitioner got an increment without passing the said examination but it is not in dispute that in 1992, he passed the examination. In 1999, suddenly the Board woke up. It issued the impugned letter holding that as the petitioner had not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, he was wrongly given the increment. As such, order for recovery was made. On this challenge being made by the petitioner to the demand aforesaid, the present writ petition was filed which was referred to Full Bench. The Full Bench has since delivered its judgment on 04th July, 2007. Mr Shivaji Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner 2 submits that the Full Bench held that where a mistake was committed, the authorities could recover the amount but had to take notice of inconvenience being caused. He has submitted that even though the authorities may have a right to recover whether they would be permitted to recover or not is a matter to be equitably considered by Courts in each individual case depending on the facts. Notwithstanding right to recovery being there, the recovery can be stopped by the Courts. He has brought to my notice recent decisions of this Court all of which are after the judgment of the Apex Court, namely, in the case of Babulal Jain - Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 180, Union of India -Versus- S R Dhingra & Others (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 229, Union of India & Another -Versus- Narendra Singh (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 750 and a case going from Patna recently decided by the Apex Court being case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Others -Versus- State of Bihar & Others 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC). On examination of all these 4 decisions, a common line appears. A right to recover as a consequence of mistake committed may be there but if it is inequitous to permit the exercise of the said right, Court will stop the same. In all these 4 Supreme Court cases, which are decisions after the Full Bench, it was really not in dispute that a mistake had been committed and payments accordingly made still the Supreme Court in all those 4 cases prohibited recovery. In the present case also, it would be seen that petitioner had no hand in getting the increment. He did not furnish any misleading or false information. In fact ultimately he did pass the examination. After such a long time, asking deductions to be 3 made does not appear to be equitous especially when petitioner was not at fault. In my view, if such a thing is permitted, it would be like because my officer has committed a fault/mistake 10 years back, you must today suffer. That surely is not the law. It is because of that consistency, as noted above, the Apex Court has prohibited recovery in such situation. In that view of the matter, the writ petition must succeed. The demand cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)