M K KUMARASWAMY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition, the order of the State Government dt. the 20th of March 1969, the effect of which is to direct the petitioner to refund the arrears of pay paid to him for some period prior to 6-7-1967.

(2.) On the representation made by the petitioner that his case for promotions to the higher cadres were not considered as and when they became due, in pursuance of the direction of the State Government, the Chief Engineer made an order on the 2nd of August 1967, produced in the case as Ex.B, giving retrospective promotion to the petitioner to the cadre of Manager, Grade II, with effect from 1-10-1953 to the cadre of Manager, Grade I, with effect from 25-9-1958 and to the cadre of Registrar with effect from 7-11-1962. The order also indicates that the petitioner's rank should be fixed in accordance with the said order granting retrospective promotion . It is in pursuance of this order the arrears of salary due to the petitioner" was calculated and the amount due to the petitioner aggregating to about Rupees 12,000 was paid. The petitioner in due Course retired from service. It is only on the 20th of March 1969 the State Govt. made an order the effect of which is to affirm the action taken for giving retrospectve promotion to . the petitioner, as referred to above, but to deny him the consequential monetary benefits for the period prior to 6-7-1967. As the amount had already been paid, it appears that the Chief Engineer entered into correspondence with the State Government in this behalf. The State Government by its communication dt.31st of July 1970 rejected the proposal of the Chief Engineer to approve the action taken for payment of arrears of salary for the period prior to 6-7-1967 and issued a direction to the effect that the arrears already paid may be recovered from the petitioner. It is when the State Government finally turned down the proposal of the Chief Engineer on 31-7-1970 tha,t the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition on the 31st of August 1970.

(3.) The contention of Shri Rama Jois the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner haying been paid the arrears of salary prior to 6-7-1967 on the basis of retrospective promotions accorded to him, before the petitioner could be directed to refund the amount paid to him, the State Government should have issued a notice giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be directed to refund arrears of salary for the period prior to 6-7-1967. As the petitioner had already received the amount of Rs. 12,000 in pursuance of the order of the Chief Engineer, it is obvious that the impugned order of the State Govt. does have civil consequences. The Supreme Court has, in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei AIR. 1967 SC. 1269. laid down the proposition that even administrative action which results in civil consequences must be taken in accordance with the rule of natural justice. It is not disputed by Shri Brahmarayappa, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, that no notice was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was made by the State Governnment directing that the petitioner should be denied the arrears of salary for the period prior to 6-7-1967 and that the amount already paid to him should be recovered from him. As the impugned order has not been made after following the rules of natural justice, the same has to be quashed.