JUDGMENT : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents not to modify/withdraw or recover one extra increment given to the petitioner as an incentive under the Bihar Government Servant (Family Planning) Rule, 1977 and for quashing of the letter dated 12.11.2007 vide Annexure-4, passed by the respondent no. 4 pertaining to withdrawal and recovery of one increment from the salary of the petitioner. 2. The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the Bihar Government Servant (Family Planning) Rule, 1977, which was under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has been made for giving incentive to those employees under the United Bihar Government for the employees under 40 years of age those who have got two children for sterilization/‘Nasbandi’, himself or wife, one advance increment in a salary would be given. The petitioner while posted as Assistant at District Development Office, Dumka on 22.10.1995, has got done his sterilization/‘Nasbandi’. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide order dated 31.01.1996 granted the incentive as per the Rule and the salary of the petitioner was increased with special increment as incentive as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, vide letter dated 03.10.2002, issued by the Finance Department of Jharkhand, envisaged for modification of the provision of Family Planning from 01.01.1996 and the State employees as per the new Scheme, will be given family planning allowance, which would be equivalent to one yearly increment and it will remain static in the entire service. In earlier provision under the Bihar Family Planning Rule, 1977, an employee under 40 years of age and having two children were given one advance increment in his salary, which has been merged in his salary and the Dearness Allowance given on the salary. The Establishment Deputy Collector issued an order dated 12.11.2007, stating therein, that due to letter of the Finance Department, dated 03.10.2002 (Annexure-3), extra increment of salary given to the petitioner is recoverable and accordingly, a direction was issued for reducing the salary vide order dated 12.11.2007 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent no. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent no. 3 and subsequently, the petitioner also requested the District Account Officer, Dumka, on 24.12.2007 by submitting a letter to seek clarification from the Finance Department as to whether the letter dated 3.10.2002 of the Finance Department would be applicable to the cases of the sterilization/‘Nasbandi’, which was done in case of the petitioner on 22.10.1995 and the District Accounts Officer, Dumka sought for guidelines and instructions from the Special Secretary, Finance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Annexure-7, but, due to non-receipt of any clarification from the concerned authorities, the petitioner left with no alternative has been compelled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in directing recovery from the salary of the petitioner, the incentive, which was given as special increment, amounts to illegal and arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel further submits that one extra yearly increment granted as per the Bihar Government Servant (Family Planning) Rule, 1977 vide order dated 31.01.1996 could not have been withdrawn and the order of recovery from the salary of the petitioner could not have been made, when the date of sterilization/‘Nasbandi’ of the petitioner is 22.10.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the letter of the Finance Department, dated 03.10.2002, does not envisage that the State employees, who have got done their sterilization/‘Nasbandi’ before 01.01.1996 and who have got one year’s special increment, which has been merged in their salary under the Bihar Government Servant (Family Planning) Rule, 1977 and therefore, the same, which has been withdrawn and changed with retrospective effect by the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, issued by the respondent no. 4 in the light of Clause-10 of Annexure-3, is not legally justifiable. 4 in the light of Clause-10 of Annexure-3, is not legally justifiable. Learned counsel further submits that the letter of the Finance Department, dated 3.10.2002 makes it abundantly clear that the new Scheme would be applicable to only those employees, who have got ‘Nasbandi’/sterilization done on or after 1.1.1996, which is the cut-off date and the letter dated 3.10.2002 of the Finance Department, nowhere contains recovery of the special annual increment to those employees, who have got sterilization/‘Nasbandi’ done before 1.1.1996, therefore, the action of the respondents in directing recovery from the salary of the incentive from the salary of the petitioner from 01.04.1997, cannot be legally tenable. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant case, before issuance of the impugned order, no show cause notice has been given to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice has not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Annexure-8 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, whereby letter No. 4388, dated 06.07.2009, issued by the Chief Secretary to all the Secretaries directing for observance of principles of natural justice before ordering of any recovery from the salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is also in breach of principles of natural justice. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has got operated Family Planning (‘Nasbandi’) on 22.10.1995 and as per the letter dated 31.01.1996 of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka an additional increment was sanctioned to the petitioner with effect from 20.02.1996. His normal date of increment in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-40-1800-50-2300 was due on 22.02.1996 and this increment was sanctioned to him as per the Government letter dated 26.11.1990, issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. Later on, as per letter dated 03.10.2002, the previous letter, issued in this regard, was modified and an Incentive Allowance was introduced in place of additional increment with effect from 01.01.1996 on account of Family Planning done by the Government Servant. It has further been submitted that as per the last paragraph no. Later on, as per letter dated 03.10.2002, the previous letter, issued in this regard, was modified and an Incentive Allowance was introduced in place of additional increment with effect from 01.01.1996 on account of Family Planning done by the Government Servant. It has further been submitted that as per the last paragraph no. 11 of the Government letter dated 03.10.2002, referred to above, it has been decided that any additional increment sanctioned in view of the old Circular, the same should be modified and accordingly, the previous order contained in memo dated 31.01.1996 was modified vide order dated 12.11.2007 and the petitioner has been allowed incentive allowance in place of additional increment. This incentive allowance was equal to his one increment. 5. A counter affidavit dated 17.11.2017, has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, wherein, it has been submitted that as per the provisions of Bihar Government Servant (Family Planning) Rule, 1977, a government servant was entitled to one extra increment. This extra increment used to be merged with his basic salary as a result of which, the employees become entitled to Dearness Allowance on this amount also. The State of Jharkhand in the Department of Finance issued letter dated 03.10.2002 in this regard as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Clause-10 of the said Circular provides that those employees who have undergone vesectomy prior to 01.01.1996 would be entitled to incentive of one advance increment, which would form part of basic salary and fixation has been done in revised pay scale on the same from 01.01.1996, such government employees would be not entitled to separate family planning allowance. It has further been submitted that Clause-11 of the said Circular further provided that the decision would be effective from 01.01.1996. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has undergone vesectomy on 22.10.1995, however, he was granted the benefit of family planning allowance with effect from 22.02.1996 by respondent no. 4 through letter dated 31.01.1996 and hence, in terms of Clause 11 of the said circular an amended pay slip had to be issued to be petitioner, wherein, the additional extra increment given to the petitioner would not form part of his basic salary. In other words, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit provided in Clause 10 of the said Circular, since, he had been granted the said benefit after 1.1.1996. 6. In other words, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit provided in Clause 10 of the said Circular, since, he had been granted the said benefit after 1.1.1996. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has vociferously defended the action of the respondents by submitting that there is absolutely no illegality in issuing Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the same warrants no interference by this Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements : - (i) Admittedly, in the case in hand , the petitioner got done sterilization/‘Nasbandi’ while being posted as Assistant at District Development Office, Dumka and was entitled to incentive as per the Bihar Government Servant (Family Planning) Rule, 1977. Subsequently, vide letter dated 3.10.2002, issued by the Finance Department, the Family Planning incentive got modified from 1.1.1996 and the special incentive given to the petitioner for sterilization/‘Nasbandi’ done on 20.10.1995 got withdrawn in view of the new Scheme and the order was passed by the Respondents for recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner from 01.04.1997 vide order dated 12.11.2007 (Annexure-4 to the writ application). Admittedly, prior to the issuance of the impugned order, no notice was ever issued to the petitioner for recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner and there has been flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. On that score alone, the impugned order vide Annexure-4 is not legally sustainable for breach of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. On perusal of Clause-10 of the new Scheme dated 3.10.2002, nowhere does it envisage that any benefit which has been given to an employee can be withdrawn in the subsequent Scheme and therefore, the new Scheme could not have been applied to the petitioner retrospectively. On perusal of Clause-10 of the new Scheme dated 3.10.2002, nowhere does it envisage that any benefit which has been given to an employee can be withdrawn in the subsequent Scheme and therefore, the new Scheme could not have been applied to the petitioner retrospectively. (ii) The view of the Court gets fortified in view of the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently taken the view that a quasi-judicial or administrative decision rendered in violation of the audi alteram partem rule, wherever it can be read as an implied requirement of the law, is null and void. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there has been a non-compliance with such implied requirement of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice at the pre-decisional stage. The impugned order therefore, could be struck down as invalid on that score alone. For the reference of the aforesaid view, the decision reported in (1981) 1 SCC 664 , Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India may be referred to. (iii) Therefore, the adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14 , Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.11.2007, issued by the Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition being not legally sustainable, is hereby quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the writ petition, stands allowed.