M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ commanding upon the respondents not to recover the alleged excess payment from his salary on the ground of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and further for a direction to release the annual increments which has been with held by the respondents.

2. Petitioners case is that he is Junior Storekeeper (Super Selection Grade) at Transmission Central Store, Namkum, Ranchi. In 1968 the petitioner joined the service and from 1970 he started getting increments. However, all of a sudden in the table of fixation of pay scale prepared on 29.10.2003 the authority of the respondents has recommended for recovery of excess payment allegedly made to the petitioner by way of increments from 16.7.79 to 14.5.94 on account of non- passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Petitioners case is that he passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 29.81994 and before 1994 there was no such condition of service of passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-Jharkhand State Electricity Board, it is stated that Bihar State Electricity Board (B.S.E.B.) adopted the Bihar Government Service (Hindi Examination Regulation, 1968 through its regulation No. 537 dated 16.7.1989 wherein there is requirement of the Board employees for passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination before getting any increment or promotion. It is stated that petitioner passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in 1994 but he has received increment prior to passing of such examination. Hence, he was not entitled to increment and, therefore, recovery is sought to be made.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the J.S.E.B.

5. Before appreciating the rival submission of the learned Counsel, I would like to discuss some of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

6. In the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Hariyan and Ors. 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases, 78 the fact of the case was that the appellant was appointed on the post of Librarian in 1972 in Government College in the pay scale of Rs. 220-550. The Hariyana Government, accepting the recommendations of the Government of India and the University Grants Commission, upgraded the pay scales of Librarians with effect from 1.1.1973 to Rs. 700/- -1600/- if they possessed a minimum educational qualification of first or second class M.A., M.Sc. M. Com plus a first or second class B. Lib Science or a Diploma in Library Science. Thereafter, taking into consideration the representations made by the several librarians appointed prior to 3.12.1972, the Government of India relaxed the requirement of educational qualification. Consequently the pay scale of the appellant was revised at Rs. 700-1600. However, the Government of Hariyana directed the Principal to withdraw the pay scale allowed to the appellant. The said order was challenged and the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, after considering the matter, held as under: Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.

7. In the case of Bihar Electric