MOHAN LAL Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was engaged as daily wage Mason Grade-I on 26.3.1989. He was given status of work charge/regular Beldar vide order dated 13.7.1999. He retired on 30.12.2006. He was given relaxation towards grant of annual increments in accordance with law. However, vide order Annexures A-2 and A-4 dated 25.10.2007 and 27.11.2007, respectively respondents have ordered to make recoveries of a sum of Rs. 41,340/- out of total gratuity of Rs. 61,392/-.

(2.) Mr. P. P. Chauhan has vehemently argued that petitioner was not heard before the issuance of Annexures A-2 and A-4 dated 25.10.2007 and 27.11.2007, respectively. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. It is settled law that any order, which has civil and evil consequences must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the authorities at the time of release of increments.

(3.) 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: