Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing Annexure-1 which is dated 9-9-1995 whereby the petitioners pay scale has been rdduced for not passing the Hindi nothing and Drafting Examination. In the said communication there is also a dhection for recovery of the amount of increment which the petitioner has received prior to passing of the said examination. The said communication has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that there is no jurisdiction of the authorities in directing the recovery of the amount of increment which has paid to the petitioner without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, it is also stated that the recovery of the amount is not tenable in the eye of law as the same is not made part of Annexurc-2 the circular dated 16th July, 1979 on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. 2. From a perusal of the said circular dated 16th July, 1979 it appears that by the said circular the Board resolved to adopt the Bihar Government Servants Hindi Examination Rules, 1968, and under the said circular it has also been made clear that the said circular has been published in the bihar Gazette and ihe same will be circulated to the employees concerned for the purpose of passing the Hindi Noting and drafting Examination. 3. The admitted position is that without passing the said Hindi Noting and drafting Examination. The petitioner is enjoying the increment of scale which is only available after passing the said exammation. The case of the petitioner is that he passed the examination on 18-7-1993. The petitioners main grievance against the impugned order dated 9-9-19% is that the increment enjoyed by the petitioner prior to passing the said examination has been withheld and money received during this period is directed to be recovered. 4. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by the Board it has been stated in para 4 that the Board vide its resolution no.537 dated 17th July, 1979 adopted bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Regulation, 1968 and made it applicable to the employees of the Board. It has also been stated that Rule 7 of the said Regulation provides that the annual increment of such employee who have to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination will not be granted till they pass the said examination. It has also been stated that Rule 7 of the said Regulation provides that the annual increment of such employee who have to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination will not be granted till they pass the said examination. The said regulation was made effective from the date of its issue, i. e. . from 16th July, 1979, and the said regulation was adopted by the Board in exercise of power conferred upon it under section 79 (c) of the Electric (Supply) Act, 1948. It is also stated that the circular is the part of the service condition of the employee of the Board and this aspect has been stated in para 4 of the counter-affidavit and has not been disputed by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. 5. S o far as the question of circulation of the said circular is concerned, it has been stated in para 7 of the counter-affidavit that the same is circulated to the employees concerned of the Board, and stand taken in the writ petition that the petitioner was not aware of the said circular which is not true. This has also not been controverted. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions delivered by two learned Judges of this Court in order to contend that the two learned Judges of this Court had passed judgments restraining the recovery of amount of increment to be paid to the employee of the Board. The first of such judgments dated 27-1-1995 is rendered in C. W. J. C. No.710 of 1994 by one learned Judge of this Court and the judgment dated 13-2-1992 rendered in cwjc No.4820 of 1983 is by another learned Judge of this Court. 7. Since attention of this Court has been drawn to both the judgments this court considered both of them. In the first judgment delivered in C. W. J. C. No, 710 of 1994 the learned Judge of this Court was pleased to observe that it will work undue hardship if the petitioner is asked to refund such a huge amount when the same was paid to him by mistake on the part of the authority. In the first judgment delivered in C. W. J. C. No, 710 of 1994 the learned Judge of this Court was pleased to observe that it will work undue hardship if the petitioner is asked to refund such a huge amount when the same was paid to him by mistake on the part of the authority. The learned Judge in delivering the judgment did not formulate any principle of law and delivered the judgment considering mainly the questior of hardship which the employee will face if the amount of about Rs.42,983/- is recovered from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. 8. This Court considers the said judgment as one confined to the facts of that case inasmuch as the judgment has not laid down any ratio. It was passed merely on compassionate grounds and considering the hardship which may be suffered by the employees. This Court is reminded of the consistent stand of the Supreme Court that a writ Court should not act out of compassionate considerations while exercising its power under Article 226. This principle has been reiterated right from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (Marketing) Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation V/s. Subodh chandra Das and others reported in 1988 (1) SCC 594 . 9. In Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. V/s. A. Unni Krishnan and others reported in air 1994 SC (Weekly) page-2534, the apex Court has made the position very clear with the following observations at para 8, page-2536 of the report: - "the reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the frame-work of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expenses of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. " Recently Supreme Court in the case of State of Tripura V/s. Arati Bala Sarkar and another reported in 1997 (5) SCC 393 the same note has been struck. " Recently Supreme Court in the case of State of Tripura V/s. Arati Bala Sarkar and another reported in 1997 (5) SCC 393 the same note has been struck. 10 As a result of the consistent view taken by the Apex Court it is very difficult for this Court to follow decision which rests solely on the ground of compassion. The ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions is very much binding on this court. In that view of the matter, with utmost respect this Court is unable to treat the decision of the learned Single Judge in c. W. J. C. No.710/94 as a binding precedent. 11. The other judgment which has been relied on is in the case of C. W. J. C. No.4820/1983. While delivering the said judgment the learned Judge recorded that there was no counter-affidavit filed by the board and in absence of the counter-affidavit the stand taken by the petitioner on the question of non-circulation of the circular has not been controverted. It is because of this reason the Court held that there was no notice of the said circular and the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition. The said judgment is thus factually distinguishable from the instant case, inasmuch, here it has been stated by the Board in its counter that the said circular was circulated to the employees of the Board and they had adequate notice. In that view of the matter, the judgment rendered in C. WJ. C. No.4820 of 1983 is factually distinguishable. 12. Another learned Judge of this court has recently passed a judgment in c. W. J. C. No.10975 dated 9th April 1996. In the said judgment on a rather elaborate consideration, the learned single Judge has held that action of the Board in refusing the increment was justified, as it was a part of the service condition that prior to passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination the employee are not entitled for any increment and the learned Single judge held that the decision of the Board is not erroneous nor is it illegal. The learned Judge also refused to stay the recovery of the amount which was paid to me employee. 13. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned udge in the decision rendered in C. WJ. C, no.10975/95. The learned Judge also refused to stay the recovery of the amount which was paid to me employee. 13. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned udge in the decision rendered in C. WJ. C, no.10975/95. This Court therefore follows the said judgment as a binding precedent. 14. Apart from that this Court holds the view the said circular has formed part of the service condition of the employees of the Board and the employees cannot enjoy any increment without complying with requirement of said circular. 15. I am of the view that by legalising increment prior to passing the said examination this Court will be promoting discrimination between the two groups of employees, some of them who passed the said examination and got the increment and some fortunate who got increment without passing the said examination. This is clearly a negation of Article 14 of the constitution by denial of equality before law. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. 16. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner makes a representation to the authorities concerned for giving him suitable instalments in the matter of recovery of amount which he received by way of increment. Such representation may be considered sympathtically and the amount may be recovered on the basis of easy instalments. With this observation this writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.