Smt. Rajni Arora vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4230 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19443 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Rajni Arora
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Family Welfare And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Re:-Civil Misc.Application No.08 of 2023-Correction Application

Ground shown is sufficient.

Application is allowed.

The order dated 27.1.2023, is corrected and after correction the same reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by respondent no.3 Director General, Family Welfare, U.P. Jagat Narain Road, Lucknow whereby he has cancelled his earlier order dated 12.03.2020 and 30.03.2020 whereby benefit of judgment of 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334' was given and the direction for recovery was withdrawn and deduction of pay scale was also set aside with regard to the petitioner.

The said orders are now withdrawn by the impugned order and the pay fixation of the petitioner is again made and his pay is reduced.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the same is violation of principles of natural justice.

The earlier orders were passed in furtherance of order of this Court dated 18.10.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1105 (S/S) of 2019; 'Smt. Rajni Arora Vs. State of U.P. and Others'.

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that the impugned order is passed without given any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 26.08.2021 cannot stand and the same is set aside.

In case, respondents believe that case of petitioner falls within the exception of Rafiq Masih case (supra) or that his salary was wrongly paid in excess they may pass fresh order only after giving a notice and proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Such a notice may be given by respondents, if so required, to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the entire process shall also be completed within a further period of two months from the date of issuance of notice. In case such a notice is not issued to petitioner within six weeks, respondents shall also pay the amount already deducted from the petitioner under the impugned order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed."

.

(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

Order Date :- 9.2.2023

Arjun/-