ORDER The petitioner was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk and retired from the same post working under the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Arrah. He superannuated on 29.02.2004 and after his superannuation vide order dated 07.07.2012 contained in annexure-1 series not only his pension was ordered to be withheld but even direction for recovery was ordered to be made from his pension on the ground that the petitioner had illegally drawn excess salary by way of increment when admittedly he had not passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit of such kind was authorized to the petitioner right from 01.05.1982 till his superannuation. He had no contribution to make in award of such increment. At no point of time this fact was pointed out during the service period of the petitioner and post retirement after more than eight years such order detrimental to his interest having civil consequences cannot be passed, which has the effect of punishing the petitioner by ordering recovery as well as withholding of pension awaiting such adjustment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in series of decisions rendered by this Court and even in a case by the Hon’ble Apex Court which is the case of Syed Abul Quadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , decisions of such kind has not been supported by the court of law. 4. Learned counsel representing the State submits on the basis of annexure-A that correspondence had been made with the petitioner on earlier occasion as well seeking information with regard to his passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination but except assurances, nothing tangible emerged. Therefore, the respondents were left with no option but to pass annexure-1 series. In the normal course of thing, no employee can be held to be given any benefit which does not accrue to him as a matter of course. Increment under the head of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination is not part of the package of salary to which the petitioner is entitled to but it is given to an employee as incentive to upgrade his efficiency or knowledge of drafting and noting in Hindi. Increment under the head of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination is not part of the package of salary to which the petitioner is entitled to but it is given to an employee as incentive to upgrade his efficiency or knowledge of drafting and noting in Hindi. If the petitioner had failed to pass such examination the State will not be under obligation to give such benefit as has been included as part of his salary. 5. But taking into consideration the decisions including the Apex Court decision as well as the time frame when the impugned order has been passed, there will be some difficulty in upholding the State decision now at such a belated stage when the petitioner has drawn the above advantage right from 01.05.1982 till his retirement in 2004 and now the order having been passed eight years after his retirement. 6. The impugned orders contained in annexure-1 series are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the payment of pension etc. of the petitioner authorized earlier. No order for recovery will now be made. 7. This writ application is, thus, allowed