JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. I.A. No. 2047 of 2025 1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing the instant restoration application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In view of the reasons assigned in the Interlocutory Application, the delay in filing the instant application is condoned. 4. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 182 of 2025 5. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment dated 31.08.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6248 of 2023 by learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed quashing the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 by which the increment given to the petitioner has been withdrawn and recovered the excess amount with effect from 2018 till the date of retirement i.e. 31.01.2022 on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and direction was passed upon the respondents-State to pay recovered amount, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order and further disburse the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner and also pass order of fixation of the pension of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Factual Aspect 6. The petitioner was appointed as Insect Collector on 03.06.1986 and retired on 31.01.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation from the office of Filaria Control Unit, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 7. After superannuation from service, the appellants- authority issued order dated 12.06.2023, by which decision has been taken that those who have not passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination their time bound promotion will be cancelled and scale of pay will be revised accordingly and pension and gratuity will be calculated consequentially. Accordingly, the increment given to the petitioner was withdrawn and recovered w.e.f. 2018 till the date of retirement i.e., 31.01.2022 on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. 8. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with letter dated 12.06.2023, approached writ court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 9. 8. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with letter dated 12.06.2023, approached writ court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 9. Before the writ Court ground has been taken that on 15.06.1968 a circular was issued in which it has categorically been stated that the person who has done his matriculation with one subject as Hindi (Devnagri) is exempted to appear in Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and the petitioner has passed his matriculation with one subject as Hindi (Devnagri) and hence in view of the said circular the petitioner is exempted from appearing in the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. 10. Further ground has been taken that the said notification has been reiterated by the State of Jharkhand, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 06.07.2001. Further submission has been made that on the ground of not passing of that examination the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 has been passed wherein the increment given to the petitioner has been taken away and direction has been made to recover the amount received by the petitioner that too after superannuation of the writ petitioner. 11. Further ground has been taken that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of judgments passed in W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2019 as well as in W.P.(S) No. 4081 of 2018. 12. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the writ petitioner has neither applied for participation in examination till 28.01.2012 (completed 50 years of age) and no permission was granted by his office for appearing in examination. 13. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of parties and the relevant circular which speaks that the person who has done matriculation in one of the subjects as Hindi (Devnagri) is exempted from appearing in Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and discussing upon the letter dated 03.11.2014, as annexed a Annexure 5 to the writ petition, which has been taken note in the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 301/2019 as well as in W.P.(S) No. 4081/2018, has quashed the order dated 12.06.2023 and direction was passed upon the respondents-State to pay recovered amount to the writ petitioner, if any, in the light of judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whit Washer) & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whit Washer) & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 339], which is the subject matter in the instant intra-court appeal. Submission on behalf of appellants-State 14. Learned counsel for the appellants-State has raised following ground in assailing the order passed by learned writ Court: I. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact of not passing of the departmental examination [Hindi Noting and Drafting] in proper manner. II. Further it would be evident from Memo No. 278 dated 12.06.2023 that no recovery whatsoever made from the Department concerned as such the order impugned has not been passed after proper consideration. III. It has also been contended that the appellants since has not passed by the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, hence the increment which has been extended in his favour was not fit to be released in favour of the employee and the moment it came to the knowledge of the authority then decision was taken to withdraw the increment given to the petitioner w.e.f. 2018 till the date of retirement i.e., 31.01.2022 , on the principle that there cannot be any benefit to any public servant contrary to the entitlement. IV. For that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has not been exonerated from the passing of the departmental examination i.e., Hindi Noting and Drafting as appeared from Notification No.317(15) dated 10.06.2019 issued by the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand. 15. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from error and requires interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of respondent-writ petitioner 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. The rule, upon which the reliance has been placed is not applicable in the context of the benefit of increment rather the rule enshrined in Article 309 of the Constitution of India is for the purpose of recruitment, promotion and other allied service of the concerned employee. 18. It has been contended that the increment is part of pay- scale and as such it has got nothing to do either with the issue of recruitment, promotion, or any allied service. 19. 18. It has been contended that the increment is part of pay- scale and as such it has got nothing to do either with the issue of recruitment, promotion, or any allied service. 19. The contention has been raised that the benefit of increment has been released in favour of petitioner right from 1986 when he was inducted in service and thereafter the benefit of increment has been given on the concept that the increment is the part of pay-scale but the withdrawal of benefit of increment has been decided to be made from the year 2018 and the said decision has been taken after the retirement of the petitioner. 20. Submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that there is no misrepresentation or if the case of one or the other public servant is falling within the criteria as stipulated under paragraph 21 as propounded in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whit Washer) & Ors. (supra) which led the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order by quashing order passed by the authority, hence, the judgment passed by learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from error and as such requires no interference by this Court. Analysis: 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 22. The issue which is the subject matter of present appeal is that the passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination has been considered by the State to be mandatory condition for extending the benefit of increment. 23. This Court in order to consider the aforesaid issue needs to refer herein that the larger Bench of the Patna High Court in Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [2000 SCC OnLine Pat 840] while dealing with the mandate of the provision as contained under Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, it has been laid down by holding the provision of Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Rules, 1958 to be mandatory. [2000 SCC OnLine Pat 840] while dealing with the mandate of the provision as contained under Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, it has been laid down by holding the provision of Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Rules, 1958 to be mandatory. It is also by way of upgradation to be a nature of promotion, as such, it has been mandated that since passing of the account’s examination is necessary for getting promotion from lower hierarchy to higher hierarchy, will also be applicable for the purpose of consideration of selection grade. 24. Therefore, there is no dispute that passing of the departmental examination [Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination] is necessary. 25. But herein, the question is of extending the benefit of increment and the State has passed the decision to recall the benefit of increment which has been extended in favour of the writ petitioner and the said benefit has been decided to be withdrawn from 2018 till the date of retirement. 26. It is not in dispute that the increment is part of the pay- scale and the same is provided in the offer of appointment itself, based upon the sanction of the post by the State Government. 27. The pay-scale excluding the increment cannot be said to be pay-scale rather it will be said to be the minimum pay- scale which means that the basic plus dearness allowance. If an employee has been inducted in the service to perform his substantive duty by getting service on substantive basis, then such service will be on the specific pay-scale and when the pay-scale will be there the same will be inclusive of increment. 28. The learned State counsel when confronted by this Court that under which rule there is requirement to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination for the purpose of getting the benefit of increment. 29. The learned counsel appearing for the State, therefore, has failed to point out that on what basis the impugned notification has been issued. It needs to refer herein that the benefit of increment was being paid in favour of the writ petitioner right from the day when he entered into service i.e., from the year 1986 and the decision to withdraw the benefit of increment has been taken from the year 2018 till his retirement i.e. in year 2022. 30. It needs to refer herein that the benefit of increment was being paid in favour of the writ petitioner right from the day when he entered into service i.e., from the year 1986 and the decision to withdraw the benefit of increment has been taken from the year 2018 till his retirement i.e. in year 2022. 30. Moreover, the fact remains that the State cannot be allowed to proceed without any authority exactly the same has been done herein. 31. However, it has been pleaded in the memo of appeal that the recovery whatsoever, has not been made. However the question of recovery has been taken into consideration by learned Single Judge based upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whit Washer) & Ors. (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case has been pleased to formulate the guideline under which circumstances the amount is to be recovered and under which circumstance the amount is not to be recovered as under paragraph, which is quoted as under: "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship. which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, where recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-lli and Class-IV service (or Group ’C’ and Group ’D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within ore year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, where the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover." 32. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover." 32. The fact of this case which is admitted that the decision to withdraw the increment has been taken after superannuation of the writ petitioner who retired after attaining the age of superannuation while the impugned order was passed on 12.06.2023. 33. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the case of the writ petitioner falling under condition as stipulated under paragraph 18 of the judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whit Washer) & Ors. (supra) has interfered with the impugned order with a direction upon the respondents-State to pay recovered amount, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order and with a further direction to disburse the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner and also pass order of fixation of the pension of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 34. This Court in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case is of the view that the finding/outcome of the writ petition in view of discussions made hereinabove cannot be faulted with. 35. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 36. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.