Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1121 (JHR)

Deinesh Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-13

D.N.PATEL

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the respondents have passed various orders at Annexure 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition, whereby, the benefit given to the petitioners by way of Reducible Pay Protection with effect from 1st January, 1996 uninterruptedly since years together, has been withdrawn for no justifiable reasons and dehors the provisions of law and, therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the dispute involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand Vs. Thakur Ajit Kumar & ors., as reported in 2009(3) J.L.J.R. 435 . Similarly, in the case of Chamru Oraon Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & ors., as reported in 2008(1) J.L.J.R. 330 , learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the benefit given cannot be withdrawn without giving an opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the impugned orders at Annexure 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition, passed by respondent no.5, withdrawing the benefit given to the petitioner by way of Reducible Pay Protection, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case also the impugned orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, they deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the respondents, who have submitted that the petitioners cannot take the benefit of wrongly given benefit. If any benefit has been given under mistake, the same can be withdrawn by the State and, therefore, the orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition have been rightly passed by the respondents. 5. If any benefit has been given under mistake, the same can be withdrawn by the State and, therefore, the orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition have been rightly passed by the respondents. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) The petitioners were given the benefit by way of Reducible Pay Protection with effect from 1st January, 1996 onwards, uninterruptedly and continuously; (ii) Never any notice was given to the petitioners that the said benefit was wrongly given to them and never any objection was invited from the petitioners nor any hearing was given to the petitioners, before passing the impugned orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition and, thus, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondents by passing the impugned orders. The bare minimum requirement ought to have been followed or complied with by the respondent-State authorities before withdrawing the benefit given to the petitioners by way of Reducible Pay Protection, much earlier in point of time i.e. from st January, 1996 onwards and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. (iii) It also appears that the aforesaid dispute has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand Vrs. Thakur Ajit Kumar & ors., as reported in 2009(3) J.L.J.R. 435 and by learned Single Judge in the case of Chamru Oraon Vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors, as reported in 2008(1) J.L.J.R. 330 . (iv) In view of the above decisions, rendered by this Court, the benefit given to the petitioners by way of Reducible Pay Protection cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, arbitrarily, in breach of the principles of natural justice and without giving any notice or any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and the judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, to the aforesaid extent.