IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12260 of 2010 1. ANJU KUMARI W/O SRI KAUSHLENDRA KUMAR R/O VILL.- SIKARIA, P.O.- RUKHAI, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTT.- NALANDA, AT PRESENT- PATEL SEVA NAGAR, ROAD NO.8, P.S.- AGAM KUAN, KUMHRAR, DISTT.- PATNA-26 2. URMILA SINHA W/O SRI ARJUN PRASAD R/O VILL. AND P.O.- AKAIR, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTT.- NALANDA, AT PRESENT C/O SRI GOPAL MISHRA, MOHALLA- VIDHYAPURI, P.O. AND P.S.- HILSA, DISTT.- NALANDA 3. LALITA KUMARI W/O SRI BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD R/O VILL.- SISOYA BIGHA, P.O.- PAKHARPUR, P.S.- KARPI, DISTT.- ARWAL (JEHANABAD), AT PRESENT VILL. AND P.O.- SATIYANA, P.S.- VIKARAM, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RAJBHASA, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 6. THE CIVIL SURGEON, PATNA 7. INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, BAKHTIYARPUR, PATNA 8. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA, BIRCHANDA PATEL MARG, PATNA ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Shanti Kumar and Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary. For the State : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, AC to GA 7. For the Accountant General : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh. ______ 03. 05.05.2011 There are three petitioners in this case. By virtue of Memo No. 685 dated 25.12.2009 certain recoveries specified in the notification have been ordered to be made from the salary of these petitioners. All these petitioners are working as ANMs under respondent Civil Surgeon, Patna. The reason for ordering such recovery is that the petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of increments over a period of time starting as far back as in the year 1992, without passing Hindi Noting & Drafting 2 Examination. When an objection was raised by the office of the Accountant General, the said notification came to be issued because the Accountant General took a stand that passing of Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination was a must for all government employees and unless they are exempted from passing the said examination, the requirement to pass is compulsory. Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that these benefits accrued in favour of the petitioners not because of any action taken by them, which can be termed in the category of threat, deception or misrepresentation but was granted by the respondents in their wisdom and the petitioners continued to draw that benefit for almost a decade now. Now relatively large amount of money is sought to be deducted from their salary. Whatever be the stand of the State on this issue, the facts stand that lowly paid employee cannot be harassed in the manner like this by recovery, when admittedly the benefit of increments was given to the petitioners on the decision or volition of the State authorities and if such a benefit continued for so many years, there cannot be a unilateral decision to recover the amount now at such a belated stage. If any wrong was found it should have been found soon thereafter when the benefit was granted long time ago and enjoyed by the petitioners. 3 A Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh & ors v. Bihar State Electricity Board & ors, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 has established the parameters under which such recovery can be effected. This Court is of the opinion that the cases of these petitioners are covered by one of the parameters indicated in para -26 of the said Full Bench decision and therefore, the respondents do not have the authority to effect recovery against the petitioners. In view of the same, orders contained in Annexures- 1 and 2, in so far as it relates to these petitioners, stand quashed. Writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)