Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 659 (PAT)

Ram Swaroop Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2000-05-02

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved on account of recovery of alleged excess payment made to him by way of increment before his retirement, as he did not pass Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. 2. It is submitted that while the Government letter no. 18846 dated 25.5.77, contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant General the provision for passing Hindi Noting and Drafting examination in order to earn increment was laid down, but the said provision was dispensed with vide subsequent Government decision as contained in letter no. 720 dated 25.4.1988, contained in Annexure-3, with respect to those Headmasters who completed 50 years of age on the date of promotion. As such, it has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of the alleged excess payment is unjustified and illegal. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, learned counsel for the State relying upon the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant General has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for grant of exemption from passing Hindi Noting and Drafting examination was declined by the Department-vide Annexure-C dated 30.7.97 in the light of the decision contained in Annexure-A. Counsel for the respondents have failed to show that the respondent-authorities have failed to show that the respondent authorities have at all considered the aforementioned Circular no. 720 dated 25.4.1988, contained in Annexure-3, issued in supersession of the Government decision contained in Annexure-A. 4. It appears that the petitioner was granted promotion as Headmaster-vide Office Order dated 12th August, 1994, contained in Annexure-2, and he on attaining the age of 60 years superannuated from service on 31st March, 1998. As such it is quite obvious that on the date of promotion the petitioner had completed 50 years of age. The Circular contained in Annexure-3 was issued with reference to the Personnel and Administrctive Reforms Department Circular nos. 11925 dated 21.6.78 and 11691 dated 9.11.83 directing all the District Superintendents of Education for exempting those Headmasters who completed 50 years of age from passing departmental examination. As such, this Court finds that the Circular contained in Annexure-A was superseded by Annexure-3, and thus the requirement for passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination (Departmental Examination) for grant of increment was not applicable to the petitioner. As such, this Court finds that the Circular contained in Annexure-A was superseded by Annexure-3, and thus the requirement for passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination (Departmental Examination) for grant of increment was not applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds that the recovery of the alleged excess amount paid in that regard was not legally justified. 5. The writ petition is thus allowed. The respondents are directed to issue necessary sanction order within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order, whereupon, the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 2) is directed to issue necessary authority slip with respect to it within one week.