1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3763 OF 2007 (Sakharam Dagduji Kute vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 18, 2009. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner is, increments and arrears released in his favour in pursuance of orders of this Court dated 31.7.1998 in Writ Petition No. 3407 of 1994 as per orders of Respondent No.3 are later on directed to be recalled by said respondent and, therefore, recovery is being effected from him. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not heard at all and this Court had granted regularization as also continuity. Because of this, Respondent No.3 issued orders on 1.2.2006 and directed fixation to be corrected along with release of annual increments accordingly. He states that accordingly from 27.9.1996, the fixation has been made and arrears have been released. 2 Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that the management has acted in pursuance of orders of Respondent No.3 dated 1.2.2006 and when that order was recalled on 27.6.2007, the management is duty bound to effect recovery. Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 points out that the petitioner was not in service from 1992-93 till 27.9.1996 and, therefore, no increments or salary for that period could have been released. After hearing the parties, we find that the petitioner has not been given any benefits from 1992-93 to 27.9.1996. Increments in his favour were released from 27.9.1996 only. It is, therefore, obvious that the stand taken by the respondents in reply is misconceived. The petitioner, however, has complained of not hearing him. The order of High Court granted the petitioner regularization as also continuity. In the circumstances, when Respondent No.3 himself issued the order on 1.2.2006 in favour of the petitioner, before ordering recovery of increments or salary, the petitioner ought to have been heard. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct Respondent No.3 to proceed to hear the petitioner before ordering any recovery from his salary or other perquisites. Respondent No. 3 – District Vocational Education Training Officer at Buldhana, shall hear the petitioner as early as possible 3 and in any case by 31st December 2009. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order passed by Respondent No.3, if occasion therefor arises. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.