R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner a clerk in a technical institute under Director of Technical Education has prayed for the following relief;"directing the respondents to release the petitioners increments as of 1 the date on which he completed 12 years continuous service". He joined the clerical post on 2/05/1964 and he completed 12 years of continuous service on 1/05/1976 However he had not passed the required departmental examination which he was required to pass within a period of two years from the date on which he joined that appointment. Therefore his increments have been withheld. On expiry of 12 years of continuous service he requested for release of increments. However that request was turned down. He also made representations to the Director of Technical Education. However he did not get any reply or justice and therefore ultimately he filed this petition. ( 2 ) IN the affidavit in reply in paras 5. 8 and 11 a stand has been taken that it is discretionary for the Director of Technical Education to exempt clerical staff who fail to pass departmental examination on completion of 12 years and in the present case the scrutiny of the confidential reports of the present petitioner showed that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory to grant him exemption for passing the departmental examination. ( 3 ) THEREFORE the question whether the Director of Technical Education has any such discretion after a lapse of a period of 12 years? The relevant rule prevailing at that time i. e. 2/05/1976 was contained dt. 24-12-1962 (Ann. A to the petition) was as follows:"a person who fails to pass the above examination within the prescribed period shall after the expiry of the prescribed period be liable to have his increments with held till he completes the age of 40 years or 12 years of service. Provided that for special reasons the period prescribed for passing the examination in the case of a person may be extended by the appointing authority or a person may be exempted from passing the examination by the Director of Education. An increment so withheld shall become payable to the said person with effect form the date on which he passes the examination or is exempted from passing it and all future increments shall accrue to him as if no increments has been withheld. An increment so withheld shall become payable to the said person with effect form the date on which he passes the examination or is exempted from passing it and all future increments shall accrue to him as if no increments has been withheld. Provided that such person shall not be entitled to refund of actual pay which he has lost owing to one or more of his increments being so withheld". ( 4 ) THE reading of this rule makes it clear that the person who fails to pass the departmental examination within the prescribed period of two years is liable to have his increments withheld until he completes the age of 40 years or 12 year of service. Thus the liability to have the increments withheld is only upto the age of 140 years or completion of 12 years of service and thereafter there is no such liability to have the increments withheld. The proviso gives power or discretion for special reasons to extend the period of two years prescribed for passing the examination or to exempt a person from passing the examination but this discretion is during this period upto the age of 40 years or 12 years of service. Within the said period of the Director of Technical Education may in his discretion extend the period of two years for passing the examination therefore there is no question of the Director exercising; any discretion to with hold or to release the increments. It appears that the respondents have mixed up the discretion of the Director within this period of 12 years as if it was a discretion for all time to come and the liability to have the increments withheld for all time to come. The liability is clearly restricted upto the completion of age of 40 years or of service of 12 years. At the end of that period there is no lity in the employee to have his increments withheld on the ground that he had failed to pass the departmental examination. Therefore the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit in reply is clearly beyond the scope of rule and the authority of the Director of Technical Education. The Director of Technical Education or any other authority of State could not have withheld the increments beyond the period of 12 years. Therefore the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit in reply is clearly beyond the scope of rule and the authority of the Director of Technical Education. The Director of Technical Education or any other authority of State could not have withheld the increments beyond the period of 12 years. ( 5 ) IN the case of the State of Punjab and mother v. Shamlal Murari and another AIR 1976 SC 1177 the Supreme Court observed passing petty tests after a petrifying length of dull official service is an old insistence except in important levels of work. Here the petitioner is working at clerical level since 1964 and there does not appear to be any reason or legal basis for withholding normal increments which would accrue to him from time to time. The language of the aforesaid rule does not permit withholding of the increments beyond the period of 12 years. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and it is directed that the respondent shall release the petitioners increments from 1/05/1976 the date on which he completed 12 years of continuous service and on that basis to pay him arrears accordingly. The arrears shall be paid latest by 31/08/1985 ( 7 ) RULE is made absolute with costs. Petition allowed. .