Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4251 of 2009
-------
1. Birendra Kumar Singh
2. Nilambar Mallik
3. Satya Narain Thakur
4. Haridwar Prasad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Employment and Training, Department
of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Saurav Arun, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.I
-------
13/24.02.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as
contained in letter no.673 dated 04.08.2009, issued by the
Director, Employment and Training (respondent No.3)
(Annexure-6), whereby the benefit of ACP granted to the
petitioners in upper scale has been cancelled and it has
been ordered to recover the excess amount already paid
from the petitioners in one installment.
3. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order has been
passed without following the principles of natural justice.
The benefit of ACP which was granted much earlier to the
petitioner has been revoked suo-moto and order for recovery
was also passed. The entire action of the respondents is
against the principles of natural justice.
He further submits that there was no
misrepresentation by these petitioners in getting the ACP;
as such, the respondents were duty bond to issue a show-
cause notice before cancelling the benefits which was given
to them earlier. He further submits that after passing of the
impugned order, the petitioners made a joint
representation before the respondent no.3 stating the entire
facts; however, the same has not been disposed of and the
respondents came with a plea in the counter affidavit that
the petitioners were not entitled for benefits which was
given to them earlier.
He further contended that now the law is well
settled that averments in the affidavit cannot supplement
the ground in impugned order. In this view of the matter,
the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
At best, the respondents may be given liberty to pass a
fresh order after following the principle of natural justice,
so that the petitioners would be able to put forth their
stands.
4. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the
respondent-State fairly submit that grounds of denial has
not been stated in detail in the impugned order and further
till filing of the counter affidavit, the joint representation
filed by the petitioners was under process. In this view of
the matter, the matter may be remitted back to the
department to pass a fresh order.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the documents annexed and the averments
made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the
petitioners were granted first ACP benefit with effect from
09.08.1999 and second ACP benefit with effect from
28.03.2004 and in the year 2008 the petitioners were also
given the enhance scale of ACP.
However, all of a sudden without any notice to
the petitioners, the respondents came with an order, as
contained in letter no.673 dated 04.08.2009, and reduced
the ACP benefits given earlier and also directed for
recovery. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that
since there was no misrepresentation or fraud on behalf of
these petitioners; recovery is not permissible in the eye of
law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of
judgments.
It further transpires from record that no show-
cause notice was ever issued to the petitioners before
passing the impugned order; as such it is clear that
principle of natural justice has been violated in the instant
case.
6. In this view of the matter, the instant writ
application is allowed and the impugned order as contained
in letter no.673 dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure- 6) is, hereby,
quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
competent authority who shall issue show-cause notice to
the petitioners and pass a fresh order after getting reply
and after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law.
7. Further, the amount which has already been
recovered from the petitioners shall be refunded to them
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
