Allahabad High Court
Shamsudeen Khan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180895
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14498 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shamsudeen Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023.
4. Earlier the respondents had passed an order dated 15.06.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, per which recovery was sought to be made from the petitioner on the ground that ACP benefits had wrongly been extended to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ-A No.2994 of 2021 and this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, considering an earlier judgment passed in the case of Suresh Chandra vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in Writ-A No.1027 of 2021 decided on 01.02.2021 extended the benefit of the said order to the petitioner also meaning thereby that the order impugned was quashed leaving it open to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law and bearing in mind the requirement of principles of natural justice.
6. In pursuance thereof, the respondents issued an order dated 19.08.2021, a copy of which is part of Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby they recalled the order dated 15.06.2020 with respect to the petitioner.
7. Prior to retirement of the petitioner on 31.05.2023 a spate of orders dated 09.05.2023, 16.05.2023, 18.06.2023, 23.06.2023 and 26.06.2023, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 5 to 7 to the writ petition, were passed whereby it has been indicated that erroneously an extra amount has been paid to the petitioner and the same merits to be recovered.
8. The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once this Court in earlier round of litigation had quashed the order leaving it open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to again pass fresh orders and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is unable to controvert the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioner but states that a perusal of the orders impugned would indicate that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what emerges is that despite the earlier order of this Court dated 16.03.2021 whereby the order by which the pay of the petitioner had been re-fixed had been quashed and it was left open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law the respondents have again proceeded to pass fresh orders re-fixing and reducing the pay of the petitioner and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner meaning thereby that the orders impugned are in gross violation of rules of the natural justice.
11. Considering the aforesaid as well as the earlier judgment of this Court dated 16.03.2021, the writ petition is partly allowed and the orders impugned dated 09.05.2023, 16.05.2023 and 18.06.2023, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition, are quashed. However, it would be open for the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023
A. Katiyar
