THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 15826 of 2000 Dated. 02–12-2010 Between: Md. Masood Jaweed and others. …Petitioners Vs. The Food Corporation of India, rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, New Delhi and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 15826 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent – the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Warangal, District, seeking to recover the amounts of composite D.A. already paid to the petitioners with effect from 1994 onwards. The petitioners also seek invalidation of the clarification dated 31-03-2000 issued by the Joint Manager (EP) as incompetent and for a direction to the respondents to continue the payment of the composite D.A. as per the circular dated 03-03-1994 and 25-04-1997, to the petitioners. On 25-04-1997 the 1st respondent issued a Circular No. 4 of 1997 inter alia dealing with ‘composite daily allowance’ for unionized employees. Under this circular, the boarding and lodging charges on tour in ‘A’ class cities and other cities in the categories of Administrative Grades-I, II, III and all other categories is specified. In a subsequent proceedings dated 23-05-2000 of the Manager (Personal) of the 1st respondent, issued pursuant to Headquarters circular dated 31-03-2000, it is clarified that Category-II and IV employees posted for procurement work/procurement centers irrespective of tour, are eligible for normal daily allowance for procurement duties as per Headquarters Circular No.4 (already referred to), but are not eligible for ‘composite daily allowances’. It is further clarified that employees who have made night halt at the procurement centers are eligible for HRA as per Headquarters Circular No.9 of 1993 dated 17-03-1993. As a consequence of the clarification dated 23-05- 2000, the ‘composite daily allowance’ drawn by the petitioners pursuant to a misinterpretation of the circular dated 25-04-1997 was sought to be recovered from the petitioners. The 1st respondent allegedly made the recoveries without notice or opportunity to the petitioners (vide paragraph No.10 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition). In response, the Food Corporation of India has filed a counter affidavit wherein the petitioners’ allegation that the recoveries are made without notice and opportunity to them, is not denied. Since there is no denial to the specific averment, under the principle of ‘non-traverse’, the respondents must be considered to have admitted to have made recoveries without notice and opportunity to the petitioners. As the action of recovery constitutes a conduct which adversely impacts the petitioners- employees with civil consequences, no such action could be taken without notice and opportunity to the petitioners setting out the amounts to be recovered and the reasons for the recoveries. An employee should not be left to speculate as to why he is being adversely impacted. The respondent-Food Corporation of India has failed in following a too well established principle of ‘natural justice’. This conduct cannot be sustained. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed not to recover any amounts of the allegedly excess paid towards composite D.A. from the petitioners without issuing a notice calling for their explanation and thereafter passing an order. There shall however be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 02-12-2010 Pvks/*