Advocates:
['A K DAS', '', 'CHANDRAJIT MUKHERJEE', 'R KRISHNA', '', 'AMRESH KUMAR', 'MRINAL KATI ROY', 'MRINAL KANTI ROY']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 7441 of 2006

(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.)

1.Radhika Raman Singh

2. Rajendra Prasad

3.Sailendra Kumar Singh

4.Udit Narayan Singh.

5. Kailash Singh.

6. Ram Kishore Sharma.

7. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh

8. Uchit Narayan Singh.

9. Akshay Kumar Mohanty.

10. Sheo Shankar Pandey.

11. Ramjee Bhagat.

..… Petitioners

Versus

1.Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman,

Engineering Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur,

District-Ranchi.

2.The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Project

Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.

3.The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Chas,

District-Bokaro.

4.The Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Division,

Chas, District-Bokaro.

..... Respondents

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate

Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

For the JUVNL

: Mr. M.K.Roy, Advocate

---------

P R E S E N T

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

By Court:

Heard learned counsel for the parties through

V.C.

2.

The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the

respective office orders, all dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure-1

series), whereby order has been passed by the respondent

No.3 for recovery of increments and D.A alleged to have

been drawn in excess due to non-passing of Hindi Noting

2

and Drafting Examination by these petitioners.

3.

At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that

the aforesaid recovery was stayed by this Court, and vide

order dated 03.01.2007 this Court has directed that till

further order no recovery from the petitioners salary in the

name of excess payment on account of non-passing the

examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination

shall be made.

4.

Mr. A.K.Das, assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini

learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners

were appointed in the respondent-department and since

their appointments they were given regular increments and

pay scale and also promotion. All of a sudden, the

respondent-authorities in view of an audit objection

directed for deduction of the increments drowned allegedly

in excess on account of late passing of Hindi Noting and

Drafting Examination. The said order of recovery has been

assailed in the instant writ application.

Learned counsel further submits that the

respondent-Board has adopted the Bihar Government

Service (Hindi Examination Regulation) 1968, however, in

spite of adoption; the same was never given effect to nor the

same was circulated among the employees and the

petitioners were regularly given increment and promotion

without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part.

3

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners

subsequently passed their Hindi Noting and Drafting

Examination, as such the action of the respondent is non-

est and arbitrary.

Learned counsel lastly submits that the order

for recovery has also been passed behind back of these

petitioners, inasmuch as, no notice was given before

passing the aforesaid order.

5.

In order to buttress his argument learned counsel

referred to the judgment passed in the case of Bihar State

Electricity Board and Another Vs. Bijay Bhadur and

Another reported in (2000) 10 SCC 99, wherein the issue

that

since

payment

has

been

made

without

any

representation or a misrepresentation, the respondent-

Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct

or recover the excess amount paid by way of increment at

an earlier point of time. Para 9 and 10 of the said judgment

is quoted herein below:-

“9. Further, an analysis of the factual score at this

juncture goes to show that the respondents appointed in

the year 1966 were allowed to have due increments in

terms of the