HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7934/2018
1. Shaukat Ali Gauri Son Of Shri Mohd. Abdula, Resident Of Resident Of Sainik Basti, Naya Bus Stand, Ward No. 11, District Churu.
2. Bhanwar Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Bhagwana Ram, Resident Of Village Mitha Dudwa Post Office, Rampura Bas, Tehsil And District Churu.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj..
2. Superintending Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Circle Churu, Churu.
3. Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Division Churu, Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjana Jawa, through VC
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/08/2021
1. This matter comes upon application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, filed by the respondents.
2. Ms. Anjana Jawa, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioners was given benefit of judgment rendered in the case of Sohanlal Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.3631/2008, decided on 17.11.2008) vide order dated 27.05.2014; however, when the respondents realised that the petitioner was not entitled for the same and, thus, the (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:14:29 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-7934/2018] impugned order dated 14.12.2016 came to be passed, vide which recovery has been initiated against the petitioner.
3. Mr. Manoj Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that whatever may be the reason, the impugned order dated 14.12.2017 does not indicate the reasons as alleged by Ms. Jawa. He submits that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner prior to passing such order of recovery.
4. Heard.
5. In the opinion of this Court, revocation of benefits once granted affects an employee's civil rights and thus, observance of Principles of Natural Justice has to be made.
6. Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to effecting recovery vide order dated 14.12.2016.
7. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The orders dated 14.12.2016 and 04.01.2017 are hereby quashed.
8. The respondents shall be free to issue a notice indicating the reasons for which the recovery is being sought to be made. The petitioner shall be provided reasonable time for filing reply.
9. On receiving the reply, the respondents shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law.
10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 20-skm/-
(Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:14:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)