An employee cannot retain increments granted contrary to statutory rules, despite protection from recovery.

Arun Kumar Pandey, a Group ‘C’ Stenotypist appointed in 1984, retired on 31 December 2022 after more than 36 years of service.

He had passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in 1986 and the Departmental Accounts Examination in 2010, but had not passed the Computer Competency Test required under the Bihar Government Servants (Computer Competency for Recruitment and Confirmation) Rules, 2011, nor obtained an exemption.

Following an Accountant General’s objection, the department’s letter dated 22 December 2022 withdrew increments granted from 2011, directed recovery of the resulting excess payment, and led to re-fixation of his pension.

The Single Judge set aside the department’s action and directed payment of admissible dues with applicable interest, relying on *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih* and *Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala*.

The State appealed only against interference with re-fixation; it did not challenge the setting aside of recovery.

1. Whether, despite protection from recovery of excess amounts already paid, the employee could claim a continuing entitlement to increments and pension calculated on those increments when he had not met the Computer Competency Test requirement under the 2011 Rules.

2. Whether attaining the age of 50 years, without an exemption granted under the applicable rules, excused the employee from the Computer Competency Test requirement.

Clause 4(b) of the Bihar Government Servants (Computer Competency for Recruitment and Confirmation) Rules, 2011 makes the prescribed computer qualification or certificate a condition for earning the relevant increment, subject to the terms of the Rules; Clause 4(c) preserves applicable age-relaxation provisions for departmental examinations but does not create automatic exemption from the computer-test requirement.

An erroneous pay fixation does not create a right to perpetuate a benefit contrary to statutory rules, and estoppel cannot be used to require payment contrary to those rules.

Under *Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar*, protection from recovery is based on equitable considerations and is distinct from entitlement to the underlying benefit.

*Rafiq Masih* and *Thomas Daniel* concern protection against recovery in appropriate circumstances, while *Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar* supports the principle that an unlawful benefit cannot be continued merely because it was previously granted.

The Court distinguished *Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar* on its facts and the employee’s substantive entitlement.

The Court treated recovery and entitlement as separate questions: the protection against recovery remained undisturbed because the State had not appealed that part of the Single Judge’s order, but it did not establish a right to retain the increments in future pension calculations.

The employee had not passed the Computer Competency Test, and his request for exemption had been rejected; reaching age 50 did not itself exempt him from the requirement.

Because the increments were therefore contrary to the applicable Rules, their prior payment and the passage of time could not create a continuing entitlement or require the State to maintain an incorrect pension fixation.

It allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the Single Judge’s interference with the order re-fixing his pension in accordance with the Accountant General’s objection.

The Single Judge’s order setting aside recovery of the alleged excess payment remained undisturbed, as that issue was not challenged in the appeal.