'eri A ^•V:T-,.,S^. -B3_-^.42,-., m'ls. ji:< '^\ T*T-, <r-'%y ^^'^f\ft^ ih3f 1TIU- SUIA^ Ud ^W/ !-'E?T^'rTTl?--f>-T%,TT^ ^,'3'^'B'^S gj'^1 ^'.§-s° Lil'?-dhar SahiL S'o L^te Poftfsni ^^liij. Aged sbout 62 years Upper Division Teacher Govi. Kigher Secondar}' Sehoo! Tiimdibode, Tahsi! & Distt. Rflinaadgaon (CG) R^ vuiage Kaiaandgaon (<J'j} SA-i Village Rfljabhs.npiiri, Post, Pendri, Telisi! & Distt. Kajnaadgaon {(-•<J). 1. State of Ciihattisgarh, through the Secre^an/ Educatioa uepartment Jji&»onawaa, &aipur (i-ij-^. 1. The Uiidcr Secretarv. General Adn'ihiisirs-tivc DeD^rtiTient DKS Bhawan, Disii. Raipur (CG). 3. Thc Pr'ncipal Go'^/enin'icnt Higlicr Secoiidary Sch*x»l; lummoode, l-'isli. Kajnandgaon ^t-<J). 4. Tlie Joiiit Director- Treasijn/ aiid Pci^^ioii- P_^irtur t<CGV T -------^ -.—.- --.....-_ ^—^_--.-^—^^^.^^. (WKY! PETJTTON IJK'nRR ARTICLE 226 OT TFJE CONSTmmON OF V-mJA) Presenf : Shri Ajav Shriva.sta.va- Advocate tbrthe rsetit.ioner. ojiui. ^jxiis-a ^jiias; faijtci ^aw-vc;i K?! 111^ otat£;/jEcspoiiu^iis. '^nlth _ <»iiw,. -__ ^ •^n.no'k AO us iv.&s&x'eiSs j..o^?^ I 1. Bv fhis Detitioii- filed under Article 226 of the CoiTsfitirtion of India. the oetitioiier cliallenffes the validitv of the orde-r dated 19.OS 06 fAi'iiiexure P/4^ ^/her^bv- th^- tIctifioHe.r has bc?ii directcd to refiind a siiii? ofRs. 33.923''- '^^''hicb ^^.s p^id to hini on grant of sec;ond ^Taniomiati from 19-04.99^ thongh the D<5titioner. ^..ccordl.n'? lo govGn'inie-nt. is; ^r'titlc'd to s^cc'ii.d I'Taii.iosii'sati froiii 01.08.2003. and order dated 34.04.200$ (Ansew.T.s n/iS) wherebv. the govenin'i^nt <?H???IOV€I^?S wer^ entitL?d to bcnef't of sAc<End ^T^nioiiiiati w.e.f 01 08.03. 1. The brief fb-cts, in iiiitsholl, are that the' petitioner 'w'as ^ppoiiited as Assist3-nt Teacher on 01.07.1970. T!iereafler, he was "ot promofed and stagiiafed on the ^.ine Dost. Afteii' comnletion of 12 vc^-rs of service lie was ^ranted first kTa??ioi'"i?iti on 01.01.S6 ^iid secoTid kr^niom^ati w^s oranted to the Detitioner (c^ after completion of 24 years from the date ofinitia! appointment, with efi'ect from 01.01.98, vide order dated 17.10.2000 (Ajmexitre P/3). 3. Al! ofsiiddesi, t3ie petitioaer received a" order dated 19.08.06 (Aimexiire P/4) whereiti, the petitioaer was directed to refiind a sijm of Rs. 33,933/- as gecond kTSiTiosiiiati sranted Ciarlier vi^s noi proper and the Defitioner was not eiitit!ed to second kramoimati froni 01.01.98 biit fi'on'i OL08.03 in accordaiice wit!'' the order dated 24.04.06 (Aiinexiire P./6). The petitioner wag neither issi'.ed a show cause notice nor afibrded an opportunily of hearing. Tlie impiigned ordere are contrary to the well settled principles of !aw and dehors the various circulars issued by fhe govemment from tmie to time. 4. S!iri Ajay Slirivastava, leamed couisse! appearing for the petitioiier, submits that the State of Chliattisgarh vide circiilar dated 02.05.02 (AnnexureP/5) adapted fee eari'er memos issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh for grant of kramoniiati and padomiati. Tlie petitioser was granfed fir't kranionnati and second kT?-3Tio!?nati ^s ner varioiis ciTc^Iars as stated in aiii'*<s3?i?fe P/5 snd thereafter adaoted bv the State of Chhattisoarh- on creation of State of Cyiattiggarh. Th<? circular dated 24.04.2006 camiot be niade applieable retrospectively for those employees who have already been granted benefit of seeoad kramoimati by eariier cireulars, thus, the order is bad in law and both the impugiied ordera desen/e to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Smt. SiTiita Ghai, leamed counse! appearing for the Sfate/respoiidents subniit that the graiit of kramoimati to the petitioner was en'oneous, as fhe subgecjiient circular issued on 24.04.06 ^^11 be applicsble rc'trospectively thougli It does not provid^d for the sanie. It was Bjrther contende^ th'3t the respondent authorities did "ot fiad fit or appropriate to afford an opportiinity of hearing to the petitioBer before direcfing recoveTy of the amount paid during 'iis service fmie. ._-—-~ 6, Ai^er hearing the fival contentions of th^ l^anied counsel ^DDearinff for the parties, penisiag the pleadingg and doeumentg appended fhereto, the facts as stated above are ada'sitted aiid indisputable. The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that no recovery ofamount can be made wnthout afiFordiiig an opportiiiiity of heariag. (See Saliib Ram Vs. State of Har^'ana & others & Vidyadhar Thvari Vs. Ths State ofChhattisgarh & others 2,) 7. Seco'id kraniomiati granted after 24 years "nder the provisions of sen'ice (^.>ndilions, esnnol: be wilhdrs'wn subsequenl'ly by a subsekf|ii€tnt circiilar. It is well settled priiiciple of !aw that circrlar'aie"Ms camiot be given retrospective eHect 'whcTC the ^ovenHHeiit etunlovee^ h^v^ beei? erantcd benefit under fhe o?d circiilar. 8. The Hoii'Ue Srpreine Court, in the ""latter of Saagam Spiiaiers Vs. Regiona! Provideat Fund Comniissioaer , observed as under: "18. It is a carclina! prmcip'e of constniction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by aecessary impiication made to have refrospective operation. (See Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Boniba^7.^ But the nile in gciiieral is annlicable where the obiect offh^ stafiite is to affect vegted rights or to iiapose new hi'rdeiis or to iaipair exist'ns ob'iigations. Uiiless tS-iere are words in the statirte sufBcieiit to ghow the i"tenf'on ofthe 'egis'atiire to affecf esisting riglits, it is deeined to b^ prospcctivc oiily no\w co^ntutlcf'n fuuiTis fofr^MWi itnpon^re c^ebst^ non praeterities. 9. In ^e'^/' of the fbfegoiiig siid applying ^ve?l settled prhiciplcs of !aw to the ^. present case, fhe petition is aUowed. No order asto costs. ). 1995Supp(l)SCC20 2. 2006 (i) MPET 105 (CO) 3.20Cl8(l)SCC397. .Sd/- SatistiKgl Judge Sabu