C/Pl@//._ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (S) No. 1‘; /2008 Santosh Kumar Ghosh, S/o. Late Shri Sunil Ghosh, Aged about, 30 years, Presently working as Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male), working at Community Health Center, Vijay Nagar (Dharamjaygarh), District-Raigarh and R/o. Vijay Nagar (Dharamjaygarh), District-Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) The Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE’J226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. / m HIGH COURT QF CHH%TT3$GARH AT 33LA$HJR AR WRIT PETWEON (3} N0. 21 65 O? 2&98 Petititma¥ Santosh Kumar Ghosh Ve'rsus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others. WRIT PETWON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTKDN OF 1NDIA (5B : Hon’hle Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Manoj Jaiswai, Advocate for ihe petitioner. Shri NN. Roy, Pane! Lawyer f6? the Statelrespondents. CRDER {OWL} (Passed 0n 5th day 9f May, 2010) 1. Chailenge in this petitiom is to the order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure PIS) whereby it has been directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner, on account of wrong fixation of hts salary. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Mum Purpose Heaith Worker {Maie} at Community Heaith Centre, Vijay Nagar (Dharamjaygarh}," District Raigarh, The petitioner received a communication dated 14.11200? (Annexure P15) issued by the respondent authorities whereby it has been directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner, on account of wrong flxation of saiary. 3. Shri Jaiswai 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 payment for no fault of the employee can be made without foiiowing the princioies of natural i'ustioe is no ionger res ihtegra. The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various ”aeg v ,»W’ . decisians ($ee Syed Ahdy; Qadir arid aihers vs” Stafe cf Bihar and etheysj}. This Com, re!ying on the abava decisQons has passed several orders; dimming refund of the amount, if any; recovered fmm the employees, where the empmyees were not grven any opportunity tn expiain about rhe excess payment §f any, made to them, 2 A%/ $hri Jaiswal: on instructions, further submits that the petitioner does not want to press other grounds i.e. withdrawal of increment or further action oh the basis of impugned order dated 14.11.2067. The petitioner confines his prayer to the extent that recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of eatery, may not toe made Learned counsel appearing tor the Statel’respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned oounset further submits that einoe no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, liberty may be granted to the respondentistate to take steps for reoovery of any excess amount after foltowlng the due process of law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner“ it is a trite iavv that no order prejudicing the interest of an employee can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. tt 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. 01 ‘ l 3 SCC 475 pf C9 ‘ I‘ ”the Sepreme Court, in Rajastnan State Road iiransport Cerparatien & anather v‘ Ba! Muiwnd Baima (2)2, observed as undet “35‘ Any arder passed in vialation of the principies 6f natwai just§ce save and except ceytaén ccntingencies of cases, wouid be a nuiiiiy. m ARAntulay this Couit heid: (SOC p. 660: para 55) “55. No prejudice need be proved for enfercing the fundamental rights. Vi6iatien af a fundamentai right itseif renders the §mpugned actisn veid. So aiso me vioiation of the principles of natuml justice fendere the act a nu§§iiy.” 47‘ The purpose of the principles of naturai justice is prevention of miscarriage ef justice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. (See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Nan'nder Mohan Arye v. United India Insurance CG. Ltd). 8. Accordingly, the impugned order 14.11.2007 (Annexure P/5) directing recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. if the amount has already been recovered: the petitioner is entitied to refund of the said amount, subject 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. 10. There shail be no order asto casts. 'Satish K. Agnihtttl" verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to Arun .‘ (2009) 4 SCC 299