The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order, passed by the respondents at Annexure-5 dated 31st January, 2006 to the memo of the petition whereby, the yearly increments given to the petitioner from 1979 to 1995 have been ordered to be withdrawn after approximately 11 years from the date of last increment and after approximately quarter of century after the first increment was given and that too without any opportunity of being heard and without giving any notice to the petitioner. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would have pointed out to the respondents that there was no illegality in granting the yearly increments to him from 1979 onwards and therefore, the• order at Annexure-5 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has retired in the year, 2007 and, in fact, no amount could have been recovered after retirement of the petitioner and therefore, hurriedly an ex parte and arbitrarily order was passed at Annexure-5, just before a couple of months prior to his retirement.

3. Counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the following decisions:-

(i) 2003(4) JCR 541 [: 2(XX)(4) JLJR 558],

(ii) 2013(4) JCR 57 [ : 2008(3) JLJR 508],

(iii) 2007(4) JLJR 459 (Full Bench),

(iv) 2007(4) JLJR 466 (Full Bench).

On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents cannot recover the amount given towards the yearly increments from 1979 onwards in the year, 2006. There was no misrepresentation by the petitioner nor any fraud has been played by the petitioner. Every year the bills towards the salary are prepared with all open eyes and are sanctioned by the high ranking officers. Moreover, there are no such allegation5 of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner and therefore, the order at Annexure-5 dated 31st January, 2006 is fit to be quashed and set aside.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was wrongly given the yearly increments because he has not cleared necessary examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, the resolution, which has been referred in the impugned order, is not applicable to the petitioner and therefore, had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, it would have pointed out to the respondents that the petitioner is already exempted from giving Hindi Noting and Drafting examination.

6. Counsel for the respond I1ts further submitted that as the petitioner could not clear the aforesaid examination, the yearly increments could not be .given to the petitioner and therefore, whatever amount has been received towards yearly increments from 16th July, 1979 to 3rd August, 1995, that has been ordered to be withdrawn. Thus; the wrongly paid amount is to be returned by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is absolutely, just proper, equitable and in consonance with the facts of the case and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Jamshedpur, dated 31st January, 2006 at Annexure-5 to the memo of the present petition on the following facts and reasons:-

(i) The petitioner was appointed as Overseer and was in the services of the respondents from 1973. He worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any show cause notice was given for any misconduct to the petitioner.

(ii) Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner was getting yearly increments every year including from 1979 to 1995 without any misrepresentation or suppression of any material facts and without any fraud being played by him.

(iii) It appears that after approximately 25 y