Shaukat Ali Gauri And Anr vs State And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12994 Raj

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

(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/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)