Judgment 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-2 dated 20.2.1996. By the said order the respondents Electricity Board has ordered recovery of the increments which the petitioner was wrongly granted earlier for the period 1980-88. 2. Admitted position is that the petitioner had passed this examination on 20.12.1987. This increment is payable only after passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination held from year to year. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has been drawing advantage of the increment even without having passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Respondents, therefore, in terms of Annexure-2 have decided to recover the same in monthly instalments. Prima facie there is no illegality in the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on couple of orders passed by Single Judges where similar orders of recovery was quashed on the ground that in absence of any misrepresentation, no recovery can be made. Majority of these decisions are based on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. V/s. Bijay Bahadur and Anr., 2000 10 SCC 99 . 4. This court could have accepted the contention of the petitioner but the respondents in the counter affidavit have brought on record an order dated 1.9.2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 842 of 2004 in the case of Chandra Shekhar Mishra. The Division Bench of this court while dealing with an identical matter has come to a conclusion that the case of Bijay Bahadur is not rightly applicable to all these cases. In view of the observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of the order the Division Bench has further decided to say in its order:- "A Division Bench of this court considered the matter in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and others V/s. Man Bahadur and others, LPA Nos. 935 & 955 of 2003 disposed of on 16.4.2004 and has already held that once a benefit has been granted to an employee wrongly and the mistake has been detected, then recovery can be made. 935 & 955 of 2003 disposed of on 16.4.2004 and has already held that once a benefit has been granted to an employee wrongly and the mistake has been detected, then recovery can be made. This court had relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Gangaram V/s. Regional Joint Director and others, AIR 1997 SC 2776 , State of Punjab and others V/s. Devinder Singh and others, 1998 9 SCC 595 and Union of India and others V/s. Sujatha Vedachalam (Smt.) and another, 2000 9 SCC 187 . Admitted fact is that the appellant is in service and he passed the examination in 1993, as stated above. In that view of the matter, under the law he was not entitled to get the benefit before passing the examination. As such the order for recovery is justified and the same cannot be defaulted on the ground that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the appellant. The mistake committed by the office can always be corrected. This court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and another V/s. Man Bahadur and others (supra) has already held that the employer has a right to recover the excess amount if it has been wrongly paid and a special Leave Petition filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Apex Court." 5. This being the legal position as noted by the Division Bench in the matter, this court is of the opinion that there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the impugned order contained in Annexure-2. 6. This writ application accordingly, stands dismissed.