"&. AX ,A ^i.ai,?^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR •I ^ :<v- DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR.JJ. WRIT APPEAL N0. 178 OF 2010 APPELLANTN0.1 RESPONDENTN0.1 APPELLANTN0.2 RESPONDENT N0.2 RESPONDENT No.1 PETITIONER RESPONDENTN6.2 RESPONDE^TNO.3 1. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Migam Limited, Through its Secretary (Administration) "Panchanan" Vth Floor, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Fiajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited; Through its Secretary (Administration) "Panchanan" Vth Floor, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. VERSUS 1. LI.S. Jain, S/o Shri S.N. Jain, Aged about 51 years, R/o H-5, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya yanVikasNigam Limited, Lokash Plaza, Shankar Nagar, Raipur CHhattisgarh. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1t OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH ; COURT(APPEALTODIV1SIONBENCH)ACT,2006 Appearance: Shri RanbirSipgh Marhas, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel forrespondent No.2, ORALORDER (Passed on 27.07.2010) Per Sunil KumarSinha.J. Heard on admission. 2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 9 Mareh, 2010 passed by the learned Singte Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6344/2007, the appellantshave preferred thiswritapReal; 3. The respondent No.l/petitionerfiled writ petition challenging the order dated 31.01.2007 (AnnexureP/1 in the writ petition) whereby itwas held that the two advance annual increments granted to him was wrongly Writ Appeal No. 178 of 2010 fixed and the same was directed to be withdrawn and it was also ordered to recover an amount of Rs.92,969/- already paid to respondent No.l/petitioner pursuant to fixation oftwo advance increments. 4. The said order was ehallenged by respondent No.l/petitioner in writ petition on the ground that the order of recovery has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to respondent No.l/petitioner, therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, relying on the decision rpndered in the matter of Rajasthan Sta(e Road Transport Corporation & another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009) 4 SCC 299, allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2007 as also order dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure P/2) directing the recovery of Rs.92.969/- as excessive payment made to respondent No.l/petitioner. The learned Single Judge also directed that the appellants herein, shall refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- which was recovered from respondent No.l/petitioner before transferring the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh and if the amount of Rs.72,969/- was already recovered by respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 shall also refund the said amount back to the petitioner and the aforesaid amount shall be refunded along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. The learned Single Judge further reserved the liberty to the appellants to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that there was an alternative remedy to respondent No.l/petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of recovery; therefore, the writ petition would not have been entertained. 6. Though it does not reflect from the impugned order that the said point was argued by the appellants before the learned Single Judge, but suffice it to say that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a circumstance whieh the Court has to take into consideration, in exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Cpnstitution of WritAouealNo. 178 of2010 '^";<F..1'V. India. It does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances. 7. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that existence of alternative statutory remedies are not a constitutional bar to High Court's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction. The Supreme Court further held that the aiternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholty without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 8. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition and has allowed the same for non-observance of the principles of natural justice and has directed the refund of the amount so recovered from the salary of respondent No.l/petitioner and has also reserved the right of the appellants herein to proceed further in the matter in case they like to do so. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs. _ Sd/- „. Sunil arsinba Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge