Judgment:
R.R. Prasad, J.
1. Through this writ application the petitioner has sought to quash the order under which excess amount paid to the petitioner on the assumption of his passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination though at the relevant point of time he had not passed the said examination, has been ordered to be recovered.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is presently posted as Assistant Accountant at Transmission Circle, Ranchi, was appointed on 1.1.1974 in the establishment of the then Bihar State Electricity Board and in due course of time, he was given selection grade with effect from 1.8.1988 and then subsequently senior selection grade with effect from 18.7.1993 and before being given senior selection grade, the petitioner had passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 5.9.1992 but all on a sudden, the committee refixed the pay scale of the petitioner reducing the salary on the premise that increment on account of passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination had wrongly been given to the petitioner as the petitioner had not passed the said examination and consequently the order was passed for recovery of the excess amount drawn from 16.7.1979 to 17.5.1992. Recommendation made by the committee for recovery of the amount subsequently got approval of the competent authority.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that any order relating to recovery of the amount is unreasonable and unjustified as the increment of pay scale had been fixed by the authority on its own and the petitioner had never made any misrepresentation regarding passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and in similar situation, this Court in a case of Nand Kishore Pandey v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors. 2006 (4) JLJR 558 has been pleased to hold that the action on the part of the Board to recover increment paid to the person is totally unfair.
4. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that without clearing said Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, benefit of that was given to the petitioner but that was given wrongly and when it was detected, the order was passed for recovery of the said amount which, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be illegal.
5. Earlier at several occasions such issue came before the Court to consider whether action of the respondent for realizing the amount paid in excess, though not entitled to get would be justified? One of such issue also fell for consideration in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr. : (2000)10SCC99 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dealing with the matter has held as under:
The High Court also relied on the unreported decision of the leaned Single Judge In the case of Saheed Kumar Banerjee v. Bihar SEB. We do record out concurrence with the observations of this Court In Sahib Ram's case and come to a conclusion that since payments have been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the appellant Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct or recover the excess amount paid by way of increments at an earlier point of time. The act or acts on the part of the appellant Board cannot under any circumstance be said to be in consonance with equity, good conscience and justice. The concept of fairness has been given a go-by. As such, the action initiated for recovery cannot be sustained under any circumstance. This order, however, be restricted to the facts of the present writ petitioners. It is clarified that Regulation 8 will operate on its own and the Board will be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law except however in the case or cases which has/have attained finality.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on 1.1.1974 and thereafter he was given selection grade with effect from 1.8.1988 and thereafter senior selection grade was given with effect from 18.7.1993 and before that the petitioner did pass Hindi Nothing and Drafting Examination on 5.9.1992. Though benefit of passing of the said examination was given to the petitioner with effect from 16.7.1979 to 17.5.1992 but that benefit was never given on misrepresentation of the petitioner and as soon as the petitioner came to know about the circular relating to passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, ho appeared and came out successful and therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case of Bijay Bahadur (supra) it would be wholly unfair on the part of the Board to recover the excess amount withdrawn on account of passing of Hindi Nothing and Drafting Examination and therefore, the order regarding recovery of excess amount is hereby quashed.
7. In the result, this application is allowed.