ORAL ORDER The petitioner has, inter alia, by this writ petition, challenged the letter, as contained in Annexure-2, being letter of the Incharge Principal, High School, Ayar, Bhojpur, by which the petitioner has been informed that his salary with effect from 01.01.1996 and its revision with effect from 01.01.2006 granting him yearly increment was wrongly done, as such, the excess payment made to him since 01.01.1996 amounting to Rs.1,86,387 was recoverable and should be deposited by him. Counter affidavits have been filed with reply thereto. With consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 04.02.1974 as a Laboratory Assistant in K.P. High School, Dumari. After 20 years of service, as such, on 18.07.1995, he was promoted as a Clerk (Assistant), which is a Class-III post. He joined the present school being High School, Ayar, P.S.-Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur. Accordingly, having joined as a Clerk, subsequently he was given annual increments with effect from 01.01.1996 and pay revision based upon the last pay drawn. Petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2010. After retirement, when his retirement benefits were not being paid, petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14151 of 2011, which was disposed of on 29.08.2011 by order, as contained in Annexure-1, with a direction to clear all the dues within the period stipulated. Regrettably, instead of payments being made, the impugned Annexure-2 has been issued. 3. Upon this writ petition being filed, counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that as petitioner had not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Departmental Examination, as envisaged under the Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Test) Rules, 1968, which Rules having been framed with reference to Article-309 of the Constitution, he was not entitled to get the yearly increments, though petitioner was in service for over 14 years as a Clerk (Assistant), he had not given the said examination and passed. He was, thus, not entitled to any annual increments. Increments so granted were thus wrongly granted. 4. Petitioner’s stand is that he was posted in the school in a remote area where even newspaper is rarely received. He was not aware of any such examination. He was, thus, not entitled to any annual increments. Increments so granted were thus wrongly granted. 4. Petitioner’s stand is that he was posted in the school in a remote area where even newspaper is rarely received. He was not aware of any such examination. His pay-scale was revised by the Principal and was granted annual increment and verified from time to time by the District Superintendent of Education and other Officers. He received payments only after they were verified and certified to be correct. Now, two years after superannuation his entire retiral dues have been withheld on the ground of not passing the aforesaid examination. That is neither fair nor reasonable nor permissible. 5. Having considered the matter, in my view, there appears to be some confusion in some quarters. Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination are examinations which have regularly been conducted every six months under the Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Test) Rules, 1968 and it clearly stipulates that every Government servant, who is required in course of his duty to write or make notes, is required to pass the said examination before he can be granted any annual increment or any further promotion. This is mandatory. It is upon the employee to choose when he would sit for the examination. He has not to be noticed or sent up or notified for the same. Then, there is a departmental promotional examination. Those examinations are necessary to be passed to avail promotions. Thus seen, one is basically for allowing annual increments and consideration for promotion. The other is an examination simplicitor for promotion. They are different. 6. Thus, in my view, the Rules, i.e., Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Test) Rules, 1968 are mandatory and clearly stipulated on the part of the employee to take such examination, which, as stated above in the counter affidavit, are regularly held every six months and failure to take the examination or to pass therein entails consequences stated therein being stoppage of annual increment and/or promotion. Thus, the stand of the authorities that the petitioner should not have got the annual increment cannot be questioned. 7. Thus, the stand of the authorities that the petitioner should not have got the annual increment cannot be questioned. 7. But, the question now arises that in view of the fact that the pay-scale was admittedly scrutinized, sanctioned and affirmed for payment by all authorities all along the 14 years of petitioner’s service as a Clerk without demur, is it open to the State now two years after petitioner’s superannuation to raise this issue and recover the entire amount which nearly Rs.2 lacs from the pensionary benefits that the petitioner is to receive. 8. In my view, the position has been examined and for the present set at rest by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others since reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 417. The law is found stated by the Apex Court, as stated in paragraph-14, which is quoted hereunder:- “14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers’ money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.” 9. But, the Apex Court itself carved out exceptions, which we find in paragraph-15 of the reports, which is quoted hereunder:- “15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col. But, the Apex Court itself carved out exceptions, which we find in paragraph-15 of the reports, which is quoted hereunder:- “15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col. B.J. Akkara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.” 10. If we then refer to the case of Col. B.J. Akkara, as noticed by the Apex Court in paragraph-11, the relevant part whereof is quoted hereunder:- “11…….But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. …..” 11. Thus, to recover excess payment apart from other considerations what is important is that the employee had knowledge that he was in receipt of excess payment and that correction is made within a short time and recoveries ordered. In that circumstances the recovery cannot be opposed. 12. Then we may refer to Syed Abdul Qadir case as noticed in paragraph-12 of the reports itself. It clearly points out the exception, as quoted in the said paragraph itself, the relevant part are reproduced hereunder:- “12. ……Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made. …….” 13. Thus, on circumspect of the fact and the law noticed above, it is no doubt true that the petitioner was wrongly granted increments, but there are no facts to show that either he had full knowledge that the increments granted were wrong or that he had persuaded the authorities to grant the increments wrongly rather the facts clearly established that all competent authorities, after being fully satisfied that the increments were due, fixed, sanctioned and granted the increments, which now after his retirement, is being said to be wrongly granted and thus sought to be recovered. As noticed above, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2010. As noticed above, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2010. For the first time the communication with regard to wrong payment was itself issued on 10.04.2012 vide Annxure-2 when apparently his retirement papers were scrutinized by the Accountant General for settling the retiral dues. Not once before any attempt to correct the wrong was made by any person nor any such wrong was pointed out. 14. In these facts and circumstances, in my view, petitioner’s case clearly comes within the exception as noticed by the Apex Court itself in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) and as noticed therein in line with the case of Syed Abdul Qadir case as noticed therein. Thus, in my view, the recoveries as sought to be made, as noticed above, cannot now be permitted to be made. 15. I, therefore, direct that the entire retiral dues of the petitioner be paid immediately not later than two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the District Education Officer, Bhojpur, who shall ensure timely compliance of the order aforesaid. The petitioner in addition to the retiral dues would be entitled to statutory interest for delayed payment thereof as well which also to be cleared within the period aforesaid. 16. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.