dag/m4, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA-TURE AT BILASPURLCHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S) No. Q {U /2008 ag? ,gmm § ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. w PETITIONER Rohit Kumar Dansena, S/o. Late Shri Hira Lal Dansena, Aged about; 36 years, Presently working as Multi—purpose Health Worker (Male), working at Community Health Center, Ghargoda, District—Raigarh and ‘ R/o. Village & Post- Ghargoda, District-Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) V E R S U S / RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Q1 Department of Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, QC av Raipur (C.G.) / $9 \ xx“ 2. The Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh , x0 v. Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 3. /rhe Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh) \ M HEGH COURT OF CHHRTTSSG&%$T BILA$PU§ WRIT PETQTEGN gS) NO. 21 63 of 20$8 Egtmwgg; Rem Kumar Dansena Versus Resgondeni State of Chham’sgarh & others. WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARWCLE 226 OF THE CGN$TiTUTiON OF lNDlA {SE ' Hon’bie Mr Satish K. Agnihotri. J.) Fresent ~ Shn ManOJJaiswai Advocate for the petltzoner Shn N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondents. QR§ER £0RAL) (Passed an 5’" day of May, 2919) 1. ChaHenge in th’is petition is to’the order dated 14 11 2007 (Annexure F’I‘S) whereby rt has been duecteé to recover the excess pavment made to the petmoner on acceunt of wrang frxazion or hrs saiary 2‘ Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner reworking on the post ef Mum Purpose Hearth Worker (Male) at Commuaity Hearth Centre. Gharghoda, District, Raigarh: The petitioner received a cemmunication dated 14-11-200? (Annexure PIS) issued by the respondent authorities whereby it has been directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner, on aceount of wrong fixation 0f satary. 3 . Shri Jaiswat submits that the punitive order of recovery has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, He further contends that the issue asto whether recovery of excess oayment for no fauit of the empioyee can be made without toiiowing the principies of naturai idstice is no ionger res integra. "wsan1e has been settied by Hon’hie Supreme Court in various 2 decisions ($ee Syad Abdai Qaa’ir and afhers vs. State m” Bihar am afhers’}. This Com, re!ying an the above dec§s§0ns has paSsed severai orders: directing refund of the amount; if any, {ecovered fram ihe empinyees, where the empioyeee were not given any epporiunity t0 expkain about the excess payment, §f any, made to ihem" Shri Jaiswag, en instructions. fwthei“ submits that the petitioner does not weni te press other grounds i.e. withdrawai of increment or further action on the basis of impugned order dated 14.1 1 .2007. The petitioner confines his prayer i0 the extent that recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of saiary. may not be made. 5. Learned counsei appearing for the Stateirespondents does not dispute the above submission made by teamed counsei appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsei further submits that since no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, iiherty may be granted to the respondent/State to take steps for reoovery of any excess amount after foiiowing the due process of iaw and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. VJ 6. it is a trite iaw that no order prejudicing the interest of an employee can beipassed without affording an opportunity of hearing. it is not the case of respondents that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and the present case is such wherein notice of hearing is to he dispensed with" \1 (2009) 3 SCC 4'75 “ AC ti. The $upreme Court, in Rajasthan $fa?e Road Transparé Corporatian & another v. Ba; Mukuad Bailwa (2,32, cbserved as unden “35. Any order passed in vimation of the princimes af naturai justice save and except certain contingencies of cases, wouid be a nu€iity. In ARAmulay this Court heid: (SCC p. 660, para 55) “55. No prejudice need be proved for enforcirug the fundamenta? r5ghts. Videtaan of a fundamentai right itseif renders the impugned acticn veid. so arse the violation of the principles of naturai justice renders the act a nuiiity.” 4?. The purpoee of the principies of natural instice ie prevention of miecarriage of iustioe and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair piay in aetion. (See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Narinder Mohan Arya v, United India insurance Ce. Ltd). Accordingiy; the impugned order 14.1t.2007 (Annexure P/5) directing recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner? is hereby quaehed. if the amount has aready been recovered; the i petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount, subject to verification of facts. However, iiberty is reserved to the State/respondents to take any steps, if so advised; in accordance with iaw for recovery of excess payment, if any. 9. The petition is aiiowed to the extent indicated above. , / sw- eatish K.Agni"‘~‘r“i ‘“ Judge 10. There shaii be no order asto costs. (2009) 4 scc 299