IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1200 of 2006 KASHI PASWAN, son of late Kuldip Paswan, resident of paithana, P.O.-Bhagan Bigha, P.s.-Bena, District-Nalanda Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, District-Nalanda. 5. the District Education Officer, Nalanda, District-Nalanda. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 7 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Accountant General. The petitioner who retired as Headmaster has questioned the refixation of pension and gratuity at a lesser rate by withholding the increments drawn by him during his period of service. It so appears that the petitioner who was a Headmaster in a Middle School had drawn increments during his career even without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and superannuated as such with effect from 30.4.2003. In course of fixation of his final pension and other retrial dues it came to be noticed that the petitioner has 2 earned his increments even without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination as required under the Hindi Examination Rules 1968. The said rules mandated a Headmaster to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination during his career for the reason that he had to be engaged in a lot of Hindi Noting, Drafting work and correspondence work by reason of holding the post of Headmaster. Although the teachers were exempted from passing the said examination but no sooner a teacher was promoted to the post of Headmaster he had to pass the said examination failing which he would not be entitled to increments. Admitted position is that the petitioner has not passed the said examination. It is in this situation that the respondents while finalizing his retiral benefits came to be a conclusion that the increments had been incorrectly given to the petitioner and that mistake was corrected at the stage of finalization of the retiral benefits. The petitioner has admitted in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the writ petition the he has received the retiral benefits on the basis of such refixation. The writ petition was 3 filed for restoration of the said increments on grounds that the petitioner being a teacher were not required to pass the said examination. The relevant rule is placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition and which in very clear terms requires the Headmaster to pass the said examination. In view of the indisputed position noted above, the relief sought becomes misconceived. The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )