Jharkhand High Court
Sohan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 105 of 2021
Sohan Prasad Singh ...... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director General-cum-I.G. of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Inspector General/Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doranda, Ranchi.
.... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing.
-----
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.,P-II
Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to G.P.
------
03/08.07.2021: Head the counsel for the parties.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Order No.
2018/2020 as contained in Memo No. 2602 dated 14.9.2020 (Annexure-1 to this
petition) by which, the salary of the petitioner has been re-assessed and order
has been passed for recovery of the excess amount paid to him.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is
absolutely bad as well as the same is in violation of principle of natural justice.
He further submits that after superannuation of the petitioner, the order impugned
has been passed without giving notice to him. He also submits that it is the fault
on the part of the respondent authorities and therefore, the salary of the
petitioner cannot be re-assessed. He further submits that the petitioner was
Class-III employee and in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and Vs. Rafique Masih, reported
in (2015) 4 SCC 334 the impugned order of recovery is absolutely bad.
4. Counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner has not passed
Hindi reading and writing examination by 2.7.1980, he was not entitled for salary
in the scale, which was granted to him. It is submitted that the pay of the
petitioner was fixed on higher scale, which the petitioner was not entitled to and
when this fact came to light, his salary was re-calculated in the correct scale and
order of recovery of excess amount, already paid to the petitioner, has been
passed. It is also submitted that petitioner superannuated from service and was
Class-III employee. After going through the counter affidavit and the order
impugned, counsel for the respondents admits that there is nothing to suggest
that any notice was given to the petitioner or the petitioner was given opportunity
of hearing while passing the order impugned.
5. After going through the counter affidavit and order impugned, I find
that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was even served
notice and opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to passing of the order
impugned. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, had passed the order
impugned rectifying the pay scale of the petitioner and directed for recovery of
excess amount, already paid to the petitioner, on account of wrong fixation of pay
scale. The recovery of amount of an employee has got serious consequences.
Lowering down the pay scale of an employee has also got a serious
consequence.
6. I further find that without affording any opportunity the petitioner to
explain his defence, the order impugned has been passed. The respondent
authorities have violated the principle of natural justice by not giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
7. Since, there is violation of natural justice, I am inclined to quash
Order No. 2018/2020 as contained in Memo No. 2602 dated 14.9.2020
(Annexure-1 to this petition) by which, the salary of the petitioner has been re-
assessed and the order has been passed for recovery of the excess amount,
already paid to him. Thus, the concerned respondent is directed to issue notice
to the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing, pass order afresh in
respect of fixation of his pay scale. The respondent authorities will consider the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of State of
Punjab and Vs. Rafique Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has
been held that if there is no laches on the part of employee and that too after
superannuation, the order of recovery from retiral benefits cannot be made.
8. It is expected that appropriate order would be passed after giving
proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the
petitioner should co-operate in the said proceeding.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands
disposed of.
Anu-CP-2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
