- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 29.8.2006 passed by the leaned Single Judge allowing the writ petition partly by directing the respondents -appellants herein -the State of Jharkhand, to refund the amount which had been recovered from the petitioner -respondent herein within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge further ordered that the petitioner's annual increment shall not be withheld before the Departmental Accounts Examination is held and result thereof is declared.
(2.) TO explain the aforesaid position, it may be relevant to state summarily that the petitioner -respondent herein had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking a direction that the payment of his annual increments due from 1.4.1997 should be restored to the petitioner -respondent and further sought a direction that the amount paid to him by way of annual increments amounting to Rs. 46,639/ -, which accrued from 1.1.1996 and was ordered to be recovered while was also finally recovered, should be refunded to the petitioner -respondent, after quashing the said order. The petitioner -respondent herein is a Junior Accounts Clerk in Subernrekha Project under Water Resources Department where he joined on 31.3.1993. The petitioner -respondent herein had passed the second paper of Departmental Accounts Examination which was held on 24.11.1994 but he was further required to pass two papers to clear the Departmental Accounts Examination. Thereafter the petitioner -respondent was paid the annual increment from the year 1996 and the amount accruing towards annual increments were continuously paid to him. Suddenly in the year 2003 an order was passed by the Appellant -State of Jharkhand without issuing any show -cause notice to the respondent stating that an amount of Rs. 46,639/ - which was paid to the respondent by way of annual increment should be recovered from him as he was not entitled to receive the annual increment.
(3.) TO substantiate this part, it was stated that there was precondition prior to receiving the annual increment and that was the condition to pass the Departmental Examination to be conducted by the Department. Countering this part of the argument, the petitioner -respondent herein had explained it to the learned Single Judge that, in fact, there was no requirement to pass the Departmental Examination in the year 1996 as the circular for clearing the Departmental Examination was issued only in the year 1999 which could not have been made effective ever since 1996. This part of the argument was also successfully countered by the appellant -State as it was stated that although the circular was of the year 1999 for passing the Departmental Examination, the same was made effective from 1996 itself and as the petitioner -respondent had not cleared the Departmental Examination, he was not entitled to avail the benefit of increment.;