- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order, passed by the respondents at Annexure-5 dated 31st January, 2006 to the memo of the petition whereby, the yearly increments given to the petitioner from 1979 to 1995 have been ordered to be withdrawn after approximately 11 years from the date of last onwards and therefore, the order at Annexure-5 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has retired in the year, 2007 and, in fact, no amount could have been recovered after retirement of the petitioner and therefore, hurriedly an ex parte and arbitrarily order was passed at Annexure-5, just before a couple of months prior to his retirement.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the following decisions:-- (i) NAND KISHORE PANDEY vs JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, 2006 4 JCR 541, (i) RAM SURESH SINGH vs JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, 2008 4 JCR 57, (iii) 2007 (4) JLJR 459 (Full Bench), (iv) NORMI TOPNO vs STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2007 4 JLJR 466. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents cannot recover the amount given towards the yearly increments from 1979 onwards in the year, 2006. There was no misrepresentation by the petitioner nor any fraud has been played by the petitioner. Every year the bills towards the salary are prepared with all open eyes and are sanctioned by the high ranking officers. Moreover, there are no such allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner and therefore, the order at Annexure-5 dated 31st January, 2006 is fit to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was wrongly given the yearly increments because he has not cleared necessary examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting.;