Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1158 (JHR)

Md. Niyamuddin v. Rajendra Institute of Medical

2009-08-19

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Order The present petition has been preferred because of the orders passed by Respondent No.1, dated 3rd/4th of April, 2008, which are Annexures-3 and 3/1 to the memo of petition whereby a sizeable amount has beer ordered to be deducted from the pension of the petitioners, if the said amount is not paid by the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially an order was passed by the very same respondent dated 3rd of December, 2004 (Annexure-2 to the memo of petition) to the effect that there are no dues against the petitioners to be realized by the respondent-State, but, the very same authority, after several years, is issuing Annexures-3 and 3/1, stating that respondent has to recover a sizeable amount from the petitioners at Rs, 12,634/- and 13,092/- respectively. 3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither any notice was ever given, nor any hearing was given to the petitioners, before passing the impugned orders and, therefore, there is a breach of principles of natural justice. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioners, they would have pointed out that there is no amount payable by the petitioners to the respondent and Annexure-2 has also been issued by the respondents which also supports the contention of the present petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who has submitted that petitioners cannot be allowed to retain the benefits which were wrongly given to the petitioners and, therefore, an amount which was wrongly paid to the petitioners, has been ordered to be deducted/adjusted and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears:- I. that petitioners were working as Ward Attendants with the Respondent Institution. When they retired, some amount were already deducted from pensionary benefits and after deducting those amounts, a certificate was also given that now, no dues are payable by the petitioners to the respondents vide letter dated 3rd December, 2004 (Annexure-2 to the memo of petition). II. When they retired, some amount were already deducted from pensionary benefits and after deducting those amounts, a certificate was also given that now, no dues are payable by the petitioners to the respondents vide letter dated 3rd December, 2004 (Annexure-2 to the memo of petition). II. that after four years from aforesaid communication (Annexure-2, letter dated 3rd December, 2004) the impugned orders have been passed at Annexures-3 and 3/1 to the memo of petition and that too, without giving any notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Figures (of deduction of amount) cannot come in the mind of officer from heaven or sky. There must be some basis, some calculation or for what period at what rate. deduction of amount, is finalized. Petitioner is thrown at speculation and surmises. These details, must be supplied to petitioner, by way of notice and must be followed by hearing. This is known as principles of Natural Justice and must be observed by respondents. Thus, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. If any, benefit accrued to the petitioners and if it is ordered to be recovered, then the notice ought to have been given to the petitioners. Thus, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice before passing the impugned orders. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and, reasons, I hereby, quash and set aside orders passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 3rd/4th of April, 2008, at Annexures-3 and 3/1 to the memo of petition. A liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate actions, in accordance with law, and at least, after following the principles of natural justice. 7. This writ petition is hereby, allowed to the aforesaid extent.