Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 514 (MP)

Suresh Kumar Bhargava v. State of M. P.

2007-05-01

A.K.GOHIL

body2007
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order of recovery dated 12.4.2002. The case of the petitioners is that they are Agriculture Graduate. They were appointed on 14.3.1983 and 4.6.1982 respectively and after coming into services they obtained graduate degree in Agriculture on 27 .6.1995 and 19.4.1994 respectively and w.e.f. the date of passing of their examination i.e. in the year 1995 and 1994, two advance increments were granted to them by order dated Annexure A-5 and A-6. Thereafter vide order dated 12.4.2002 the same has been withdrawn and direction has been issued for the recovery of the same. 2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were entitled for two increments as per circular and policy decision of the State Government and after eight years Government took a decision about withdrawal of the same and also recovery of the same but has not provided any opportunity of hearing nor issued any show cause notice. 3. In reply, the stand of the Government is that according to the Revision of Pay Rules of 1990 and clarification given by the Finance Department as per Annexure A-2 only those RAFOs, who have been duly appointed prior to 1.1.1986 and having qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture) are entitled for the benefit of two increments and not the other persons. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the position on record is that before directing the order of recovery or withdrawing the facility granted to the petitioners after 8 years, the State Government has neither issued any show cause notice, nor provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is settled position under the law that if any adverse orders are passed against an employee having civil consequences, under the principle of natural justice opportunity of hearing has to be provided to him. In the case of Shekhar Gosh v. Union of India [ (2007) 1 SCC 331 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court has applied the rule of Audi alteram partem in the administrative law. In the case of Shekhar Gosh v. Union of India [ (2007) 1 SCC 331 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court has applied the rule of Audi alteram partem in the administrative law. In this case, it has been held that it is not denied or disputed that even when a mistake is sought to be rectified, if by reason, an employee has to suffer civil consequences ordinarily the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with and placed reliance in the decision in the case of Ram Ujarey v. Union of India [ (1999) 1 SCC 685 ]. 5. Again in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18] the apex Court has held that if any benefit of higher pay scale was given to an employee on wrong construction made by the Principal, employee cannot held to be at fault and it was directed that under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. 6. Under the order passed by the Tribunal, the recovery was stayed. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that before recovery of the amount, the respondent shall issue show cause notice to the petitioners and after providing opportunity of hearing shall take decision in the matter whether he is entitled for the benefit of the increment or not in accordance with law and the amount paid to him, without his fault is not liable to be recovered. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.