IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.298 of 2001 Date of Decision : August 11, 2011. Gurcharan Kaur .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 18.12.1998, 21.1.1999 and 19.4.1999 (Annexures P-3, P-4 & P-1, respectively) whereby the benefit of military service granted to her deceased-husband late Malagar Singh in the year 1974 towards the pay fixation/grant of increments only, has been withdrawn after a period of 24 years and after his death and a recovery of Rs.33,178/- has been effected. 2] Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention that the husband of the petitioner joined the Indian Army on 17.12.1957 and he served there till he was discharged w.e.f. 16.3.1973. The husband of the petitioner was thereafter appointed as driver in the Transport Department, Punjab in the CWP No.298 of 2001 [2] year 1974 and was thereafter transferred to the Ministers Car Section on 9.7.1976. He continued to serve as a driver till his retirement w.e.f. 31.12.1997. While in service, the husband of the petitioner applied and was granted the benefit of military service rendered during the emergency, i.e., 5 years 2 months and 15 days towards the pay fixation and increments under Rule 4 of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The deceased-husband of the petitioner continued to draw such benefit till his retirement w.e.f. 31.12.1997. The petitioner's husband unfortunately passed away on 28.7.1998. Since no pensionary benefits/ retiral dues were granted to him during his life time, the petitioner approached this Court in CWP No.16493 of 1999 and it appears that under the orders of this Court, the retiral dues were released with interest. However, while releasing those benefits, Rs.33,178/- were deducted from the arrears and leave encashment. Since the said recovery was not under challenge in the above mentioned writ petition, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the same separately. 3] The petitioner impugns the said recovery order in the present writ proceedings. 4] The respondents have filed three separate reply-affidavits, i.e., one by respondent Nos.1 & 2, other by respondent No.3 and third by respondent No.4, maintaining that the deceased-husband of the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of military service towards the pay fixation as he was drawing the pension from the Union of India for the military service rendered by him. The another plea taken by the respondents is that CWP No.298 of 2001 [3] the deceased-husband of the petitioner was not entitled to such benefit as per The Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1968. 5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the records. 6] It is an admitted fact that no show cause notice was issued to the deceased-husband of the petitioner during his life time nor an order for re-fixation of his pay or consequential recovery was passed till his retirement and/or after retirement till he was alive. It is well settled that an order having civil consequences cannot be passed without giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the affected employee. Since no such opportunity was given to the deceased-husband of the petitioner till his retirement w.e.f. 31.12.1997, the impugned action of the respondents cannot sustain in law. The order of re-fixation of pay of the deceased- employee to his dis-advantage and/or the order of consequential recovery of Rs.33,178/- are liable to be quashed on this score alone. 7] Since the affected employee has meanwhile died, the respondents cannot be permitted to issue a show cause notice at this stage to the petitioner as the petitioner would not be in a position to contest the issue in an effective manner. This chapter is accordingly ordered to be closed. The respondents are directed to release the with-held amount to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Similarly, the pension of the deceased-employee as well as the family pension CWP No.298 of 2001 [4] admissible to the petitioner, shall be consequently revised and the arrears thereof shall also be paid to the petitioner alongwith the same rate of interest within the above stated stipulated period. 8] Dasti. August 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE