MAHESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, and for the State as well as the Accountant General.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this application for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 862 dated 2.4.2004 whereby the increments allowed to the petitioner on the basis of his promotion with effect from 1.1.1979 has been withdrawn as his salary has been fixed at Rs. 5500/ - instead of Rs. 6725/ - with effect from 1.1.1996. This order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the subsequent order contained in Memo No. 81 dated 31.7.2004 whereby Rs. 3,45,854/ - has been directed to be recovered from the gratuity, leave encashment, LLC, Provident fund of the petitioner.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the State wherein it has been stated that the order passed in case of the petitioner, giving him exemption from appearing in the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination was an order without jurisdiction as the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi was not the competent authority to grant exemption from appearing and passing departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. As per Hindi Examination Rules 1968 (Notification No. 361 IR dated 15.6.1968), it is clear that every government servants whose nature of work demanded Noting and Drafting had to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and unless he passed the said examination, he could not have the benefit of increment/ confirmation and he wiii not cross the efficiency bar. As per letter No. 12/5040 -78 per/1925, dated 21.6.1978, the Government decided a principle that those personnel who crossed 50 years of age but had not passed departmental examination if applied for exemption from the examination, his case may be considered. This circular was not clear about the competent authority. Subsequently, in letter vide memo no 11691/per dated 9.11.83 was issued continuation of the circular 11925 dated 21.6.1978 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Frorr this circular, it is clear that exemption could have been granted by the depr mental Secretary. In this view, it has beesubmitted by the counsel for the State that the exemption order which has been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi is nor sufficient for giving him exemption from passing the examination as the Superintendent of Police was not competent authority to grant exemption.