SURESH PAUL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, vide Annexure:A-1 the recoveries were directed to be effected by re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioner. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was not heard before issuance of the Annexure:A-1. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. The petitioner has superannuated on 31.8.2008. It is well settled by now that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

(2.) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer:

(3.) In view of the definitive law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of AnnexureA-1, the writ petition is allowed and Annexue:A-1 is quashed and set aside. In the normal circumstances the Court ought to have given opportunity to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has superannuated. In view of this, immense hardship will be caused to him, if the matter is kept alive. Accordingly, the matter is closed. It is made clear that since Annexue:A-1 dated 12.8.2004 has been quashed, the pensionary benefit(s) etc. shall be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the earlier pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986.