IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7812/2008 Decided on:11.5.2009 Indira Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher on contract basis on 6.1.1997. She was paid house rent allowance, interim relief etc. with effect from May, 1999 to May, 2001. However, vide order dated 18.6.2001, the petitioner was not held entitled to these allowances. She was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 15,903/-. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Annexure A-3 dated 18.6.2001. He then contended that the petitioner has neither misled 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 the facts nor played any fraud upon the respondents at the time of release of these allowances. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not entitled to these allowances since according to him, she was only entitled to basic scale of Rs. 1200/- fixed plus other allowances . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was appointed on 6.1.1997. She was granted house rent allowance, interim relief etc. as per the details provided in Annexure A-3 dated 18.6.2001. These allowances have been paid to the petitioner by the respondent-State. It is not borne out from the records that the petitioner has ever misrepresented the facts at the time of payment of these allowances to her. The petitioner has been paid these allowances for the period May, 1999 to May, 2001. There is sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Rakesh Thakur that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the issuance of order dated 18.6.2001. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that since the petitioner was not entitled to these allowances, she was not required to be heard. The Court is of the firm opinion that the order dated 18.6.2001 has visited the petitioner with civil and evil consequences. The petitioner was required to be heard before the issuance of letter dated 18.6.2001. She has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 15,903/-, which was paid to her for the period May, 1999 to May, 2001. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil 3 consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3 dated 18.6.2001 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis with effect from 1997 and the amount involved is only Rs. 15,903/-. The petitioner has spent this amount by treating it her own money. In these circumstances, the matter is closed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 11.5.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*