1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2979 OF 2009 Sakharam s/o Dattatraya Deshmukh, Age : 57 years, Occu. Service, R/o "Shri Nath" Niwas, near Jaikwadi Gate, Chinteshwar Co-operative Society, Gevrai, Dist. Beed ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Union of India, through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, (Department of Economic Affairs), Insurance Division, New Delhi 2. The Joint Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, (Department of Economic Affairs), Insurance Division, New Delhi 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai through its Chairman-cum Managing Director 4. Regional Office, through The Chief Regional Manager, Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan, M.E.C.L. Premises, 4th floor, High-Land Drive Seminary Hills, Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS 2 Mr M.V. Deshpande, Advocate holding for Mr R.S. Sarvadnya for the petitioner; Mr S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 31st August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the impugned communication dated 23.7.2008 issued by respondent no.3 by which the Senior Divisional Manager at Aurangabad was informed that the petitioner had been wrongly paid the pay scale. Pursuant thereto, it appears that from April, 2009 the arrears are being recovered and consequent thereto the petitioner is being paid salary which is in the negative. 3. We need not dilate on the factual aspects of the matter as it would suffice to state that prior to the issuance of this order i.e. of ordering recovery of the so called arrears being wrongly paid to 3 the petitioner, the petitioner was neither issued any show cause notice nor was any opportunity afforded to the petitioner of submitting his reply, much less an opportunity of hearing. According to us, such an order is unsustainable in law. The aforesaid order visits the petitioner with civil consequences inasmuch as the respondents, behind the back of the petitioner had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has been wrongly paid the pay scale and the aforesaid amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The minimum to which the petitioner was entitled to was a show cause notice with an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against such recovery by submitting his reply. The respondents have not provided to the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause but have also denied an opportunity of hearing. By this petition the petitioner contends that the aforesaid recovery is wholly unjustified and the petitioner is entitled to pay scale which has been granted to him and as such no recovery could be ordered. 4. In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order. We further direct the respondents, if they so wish, to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount as stated by the respondents should not be recovered from the petitioner. If such a notice is received 4 by the petitioner, the petitioner to submit reply within four weeks of the receipt of the said notice and the respondents to pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. 5. In the result, therefore, this petition succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside giving liberty to the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and initiate the proceedings of recovery, if the respondents so desire. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp2979.09 5