IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13658 of 2005 UPENDRA SINGH Son of Late Ram Tahal Singh, Resident of Village-Ratanpur P.O.-Ratanpur, P.S.- Gidhaur, District-Jamui Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Jamui, District-Jamui 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jamui 4. The Block Development Officer, Gidhaur, District- Jamui. 5. The Treasury Officer, Jamui, District-Jamui ----------- 3. 13.09.2010 Petitioner has been communicated the order dated 14.07.2004 by virtue of which certain recoveries was sought to be made from him. Annexure-1 is the order which is a very cryptic order and does not even indicate the circumstances for such a recovery. On the pleadings made in the writ application it seems that this recovery was sought to be made against a wrongful grant of increment to the petitioner while he was still in service. It is a well settled law that after retirement recovery of this kind for wrongful grant is not permissible and that too when the respondents have not taken any step while the petitioner was in service and when admittedly respondents did not even bother to give an opportunity to explain the position under which such a benefit came to accrue to him and it is sought to be withdrawn. 2 From the counter affidavit it is evident that the reason for withdrawing the benefit of increment was not passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination by the petitioner while he was still in service. Though the recent decision of learned Single Judge in this regard is specific that passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting examination was a must and any exemption can be allowed in accordance with the circular governing the issue. It has also held that no recovery would be made, specifically if the employee has superannuated and no action was taken while he was still in service. In this regard the decision reported is 2010 (3) PLJR 220 (Daya Shankar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). This writ application is allowed and the order of recovery passed is hereby quashed. If recovery has already been made, that will be refunded to the petitioner. However, it is also clarified that the respondents have freedom to refix the salary of the petitioner taking out the component of increment from it in fixing his pension and other post retirement benefits. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)