WILLIAM KUJUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 29th August, 2009, which is at Annexure -2 to the memo of the petition, whereby, benefit of first Assured Career Progression scheme, which was given in the year 1999, has been withdrawn as well as benefit of second Assured Career Progression scheme, which was given on 9th April, 2003, has also been withdrawn and that too without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it has been stated in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the memo of the petition that without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed. These allegations have not been denied, though the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that reasons, which are given in the impugned order are not tenable at law. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, he would have pointed out that the reasons, which are given in the impugned order, are totally baseless reasons. The benefits, which were given in the year 1999 and 2003, were also approved by the superior officers and after due verification, benefits were given to the petitioner, which cannot be taken away abruptly and that too putting allegation against the petitioner and without giving any notice, exparte decision has been taken by the respondents at Annexure -2 and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed order has been passed at Annexure -2 by respondent no. 3 and the petitioner is neither entitled to first Assured Career Progression benefit nor to second Assured Career Progression benefit and, therefore, the benefits which were given to the petitioner, have been withdrawn by the impugned order. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record as also the judicial pronouncements. In Sahib Ram case (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically held that any amount paid to an employee without his misrepresentation cannot be recovered. In Laxman Prasad Gupta case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court has held that after retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and the recovery out of the retiral dues cannot be made, except by following the due procedure established by law. No contrary rule or decision has been produced on behalf of the respondents. 