MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–The present writ petition has been filed primarily for directing the respondents to make payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.03.2021, while working as Headmaster, Upgraded Middle School, Fatehpur, Khaira, Jamui.

2. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the retiral dues have not been paid despite the petitioner having retired long back from his services.

3. Per Contra, it is the stand of the respondent-State, as is apparent from the counter affidavits filed in the present case that the entire retiral dues of the petitioner has now stood paid.

4. The learned Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, who is present in the Court, has submitted that on account of objection being raised by the Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna regarding incorrect fixation of pay scale of the petitioner due to grant of erroneous annual increments without the petitioner having passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Exam and consequently, the pension papers/service book of the petitioner being returned to the department, the respondent State authorities had taken corrective measures, whereupon the pay-scale of the petitioner was re-fixed by excluding the annual increments, which had been erroneously granted to him, without him having passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Exam. It is also submitted that though the pension and gratuity of the petitioner has now been calculated on the basis of the re-fixed pay-scale, as aforesaid, however, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, the most recent one being the one rendered by in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the respondent Department does not intend to make any recovery of the amount of excess salary paid to the petitioner on account of grant of annual increments to him without passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Exam, especially in view of the fact that there has been no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner to derive such benefits and the mistake is on the part of the respondents-State authorities, who had wrongly granted annual increments to the petitioner.

5. This Court, in its order dated 10.08.2022, had though refuted the objection raised by the Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna by relying on a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi, reported in 2020(2) BLJ 471, as upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, it has been pointed out that although it has been held in the said case that excess salary paid to the concerned employee cannot be recovered after superannuation but then it has also been held therein that passing of departmental / accounts examination is not a condition precedent for grant of the benefits of A.C.P./ M.A.C.P., whereas the present case pertains to denial of annual increments, upon promotion, in case the incumbent does not pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Exam within one year. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which are statutory in nature and would govern the mode and manner of grant of annual increments to the concerned employee, subject to passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Exam. Rules 3 and 7 of the Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968, are reproduced herein below:—

^^3- gjsd ljdkjh lsod dks ftldh fu;qfDr ,sls in ij gqbZ gS] tgka mls vius dÙkZO;&lEiknu ds Øe esa fVIi.kh fy[kuk vkSj izk:i.k rS;kj djuk iM+rk gS ftuesa fjiksVZ vkfn Hkh 'kkfey gks] nsoukxjh fyfi esa fgUnh fVIi.kh vkSj izk:i.k dh ijh{kk esa ml in fu;qfDr ls ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj mÙkh.kZ gksuk gksxkA tks ljdkjh lsod ljdkjh ladYi la[;k&1632] fnukad 11 vDVwcj] 1961 ds vèkhu fofgr vkSj dsUnzh; ijh{kk lfefr }kjk lapkfyr fgUnh dh foHkkxh; ijh{kk esa mPp ;k fuEu Lrj ls m