JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the respective office orders, all dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure-1 series), whereby order has been passed by the respondent No.3 for recovery of increments and D.A alleged to have been drawn in excess due to non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination by these petitioners. 3. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that the aforesaid recovery was stayed by this Court, and vide order dated 03.01.2007 this Court has directed that till further order no recovery from the petitioners salary in the name of excess payment on account of non-passing the examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination shall be made. 4. Mr. A.K. Das, assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners were appointed in the respondent-department and since their appointments they were given regular increments and pay scale and also promotion. All of a sudden, the respondent-authorities in view of an audit objection directed for deduction of the increments drowned allegedly in excess on account of late passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The said order of recovery has been assailed in the instant writ application. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-Board has adopted the Bihar Government Service (Hindi Examination Regulation) 1968, however, in spite of adoption; the same was never given effect to nor the same was circulated among the employees and the petitioners were regularly given increment and promotion without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners subsequently passed their Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, as such the action of the respondent is nonest and arbitrary. Learned counsel lastly submits that the order for recovery has also been passed behind back of these petitioners, inasmuch as, no notice was given before passing the aforesaid order. 5. In order to buttress his argument learned counsel referred to the judgment passed in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Bijay Bhadur and Another reported in (2000) 10 SCC 99 , wherein the issue that since payment has been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the respondent-Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct or recover the excess amount paid by way of increment at an earlier point of time. Bijay Bhadur and Another reported in (2000) 10 SCC 99 , wherein the issue that since payment has been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the respondent-Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct or recover the excess amount paid by way of increment at an earlier point of time. Para 9 and 10 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “9. Further, an analysis of the factual score at this juncture goes to show that the respondents appointed in the year 1966 were allowed to have due increments in terms of the service conditions and salary structure and were also granted promotions in due course of service and have been asked after an expiry of about 14-15 years to replenish the Board exchequer from out of the employees’ salaries which were paid to them since the year 1979. It is on this score the High Court observed that as both the petitioners have passed the examination though in the year 1993, their entitlement for relief cannot be doubted in any way. The High Court has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana wherein this Court in para 5 of the Report observed: (SCC p. 20) “5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” 10. The High Court also relied on the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Saheed Kumar Banerjee v. Bihar SEB. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” 10. The High Court also relied on the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Saheed Kumar Banerjee v. Bihar SEB. We do record our concurrence with the observations of this Court in Sahib Ram case and come to a conclusion that since payments have been made without any representation or a misrepresentation, the appellant Board could not possibly be granted any liberty to deduct or recover the excess amount paid by way of increments at an earlier point of time. The act or acts on the part of the appellant Board cannot under any circumstances be said to be in consonance with equity, good conscience and justice. The concept of fairness has been given a go-by. As such the actions initiated for recovery cannot be sustained under any circumstances. This order however be restricted to the facts of the present writ petitioners. It is clarified that Regulation 8 will operate on its own and the Board will be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law except however in the case or cases which has/have attained finality.” 6. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court on a similar issue in the case of Nand Kishore Pandey Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors reported in (2006) 4 JLJR 558 (HC), wherein in para 10 and 11 it has been held as under:- “10. In the instant case, as noticed above, the petitioner was appointed as temporary Work Sarkar in 1968 in the Work charge establishment. Thereafter, he was appointed as a provisional Junior Store-keeper in 1970. Subsequently his services were confirmed and he has been continuing as junior store keeper selection grade). It appears that in 1979 the respondents-Board vide its resolution adopted the Bihar State Services (Hindi Examination) Rules 1968 which was published in the official gazette. However, this resolution was circulated only in 1993 vide letter No. 31 dated 8.2.93 by which all the Chief Engineer, General Managers, Finance Controllers, Joint Secretaries and various other authorities were intimated regarding the details of the employees who were required to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. However, this resolution was circulated only in 1993 vide letter No. 31 dated 8.2.93 by which all the Chief Engineer, General Managers, Finance Controllers, Joint Secretaries and various other authorities were intimated regarding the details of the employees who were required to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The petitioner immediately appeared in the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination conducted by the Board and passed the said examination in 1994. It was only in 1992-94 employees of the Board were informed by a Circular that those employees who will not pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination shall not get increments. 11. In our view therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijay Bahadurs case (Supra) shall apply in the present case. Consequently, it would be totally unfair on the part of the Board if any increment paid before 1994 is directed to be recovered from the petitioners.” 7. Learned counsel reiterated his argument by submitting that the petitioners have later on passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and further for getting the increments they have never misrepresented or filed any representation whatsoever, as such as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several matters; the recovery of the amount is not permissible in the eye of law. He further submits that all the petitioners have now retired. 8. Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent-JUVNL submits that the increments were granted against the provision of law and the petitioners cannot take shelter that the said regulation with regard to Hindi examination was not circulated to them. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Other, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the excess payment which has been made was a public money and is often described as taxpayers money which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor the employees and the question of fraud or misrepresentation should not come on the way of recovery of those money. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:- “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. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:- “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.” Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Roy submits that the order of recovery has a legal force and should not be quashed. Mr. Roy concluded his argument by submitting that the order was passed when the petitioners were in service and as such the ratio laid down in the cases relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable in the instant case. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the impugned orders (Annexure-1 series) has been issued against these petitioners for recovery of amount given in the impugned letters. It further transpires that no notice, whatsoever, was given to them prior to issuance of the aforesaid order of recovery. 10. At the outset, I would like to discuss the judgment relied upon by the respondents, inasmuch as, in the said judgment of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has made an exception in paragraph 15 which is quoted herein below:- “15. 10. At the outset, I would like to discuss the judgment relied upon by the respondents, inasmuch as, in the said judgment of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has made an exception in paragraph 15 which is quoted herein below:- “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.” 11. Thus, it is necessary to go through the judgment rendered in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 . “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. 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.” 12. After going through the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Syed Adbul Qadir (Supra) it appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring its earlier judgment passed in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Other Vs. Union of India and Others reported (1994) (2) SCC 521 and the case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd). Vs. Government of India & Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709 has restrained the department from recovery of excess amount paid earlier. Union of India and Others reported (1994) (2) SCC 521 and the case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd). Vs. Government of India & Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709 has restrained the department from recovery of excess amount paid earlier. In view of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Sayed Adbul Qadir (Supra) and looking to the facts of the instant case, it appears that the letters impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside, inasmuch as, the petitioners never made any misrepresentation/ representation or fraud on their part and the excess payment was made as a result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them and the petitioners subsequently passed their Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. 13. Further, in the case of Nand Kishore Pandey (Supra), whereby this Court in the similar facts and circumstances held that the recovery made by the respondent-Board is non-est in the eye of law and held that it would be totally unfair on the part of Board if any increment paid before 1994 is directed to be recovered from the petitioners. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the rival parties that the judgment passed in the case of Nand Kishore Pandey (Supra) has attained finality. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions and judicial pronouncements, I hold that the impugned orders/letters all dated 16.12.2005 annexed as Annexure-1 series in case of respective petitioners; are non-est in the eye of law and the same are hereby, quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that from the order passed by this Court; it appears that no recovery was to be made. However, if at all any recovery has been made with respect to any of the petitioners; same shall be refunded within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 15. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.