Biharilal v. Singh

#1. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

#2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the he was appointed on 15.03.1991 on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar in Pay-scale of Rs.750-940 per month on ad hoc basis, however, now the impugned order had been passed on 26.08.2025 by Regional Ayurvedic Evam Unani Officer, Etah, seeking to recover an amount of Rs.2636/- per month. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order dated 26.08.2025 cannot be sustained, as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice, as in this regard, reference has been made to paragraph-12 of the writ petitioner. He further submits that there happens to be neither the misrepresentation, practicing of fraud or concealment, thus the recovery cannot be sustained.

#3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that from the order in question, it is not forthcoming whether the writ petitioner was put to notice or not. As according to him, the writ petitioner ought to have been put to notice.

#4. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

#5. Apparently, the order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the third respondent is completely silent upon the fact whether any show-cause notice was given to the writ petitioner to tender his reply and in case, the petitioner did not submit his reply, then too, there is no recital to the same. In Bhagwan 2 WRIA No. 15615 of 2025 Shukla vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2480 the following was observed:- "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."

#6. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of with the following terms: (a) The order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the third respondent is set aside. (b) The matter is remanded back to the third respondent to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

#7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 17, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad