IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11015 of 2002 Sarju Sharma, Son of late Ganesh Sharma, Resident of village - Jethwar, P O - Hasan Bazar, P S - Tarari, District - Bhojpur, at present residing at Mohalla - Galaroad, Gajadhar Chak, P S - Danapur, District - Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary to the Government, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna 3 The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4 The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas 5 The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara 6 The District Provident Fund Officer, Ara 7 The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 8 Sunil Prasad, father’s name not known, GPF Clerk, S P Office, Ara, Bhojpur 9 Kishore Prasad, father’s name not known, GPF Clerk, S P Office, Ara, Bhojpur - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Mahendra Pathak, Maya Shankar Mishra & Nagendra Upadhayay, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Gyan Prakash Ojha, For the A G : Mr J P Karn *** 9 10.11.2008 The petitioner retired from Police Service on 31.01.2002. After his retirement, a deduction of Rs 49,443/- has been made from his pension etc. Further, for one month, he was not paid salary. So far as that one month’s salary is concerned, respondents have pointed out that he had been deputed to Shrawani Mela but he did not report there and gave a wrong joining report because of which a departmental proceeding was initiated and in that, it was ordered that for the period he was not working, he would not get salary. This, in my view, accounts for the one month’s salary not paid. The order of the departmental proceeding forfeiting one month’s salary has not been challenged and 2 has become final. The next contention is with regard to recovery and alleged reduction in pension. The law is well settled in this regard. Before monetary benefits are altered adverse to an employee, the employee has right to be heard in the matter. Assuming petitioner was being given salary/increments at a wrong pay scale, that would give rise to the State to correct the same but that could only be done after petitioner was given an opportunity to defend the pay scale/increments granted to him. It is well established that before an order having adverse civil consequences is passed, the party must be noticed and must have an opportunity to explain. In the present case, it is not the case of the State that the petitioner made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud to obtain a wrong increment. Thus, while accepting the right of the State to make amendments, it cannot be held that automatically the right of recovery to flow. It would be highly inequitous at this stage of the matter that is after six years of superannuation to permit recovery of dues from the petitioner for no fault of his. Thus, to the extent of recovery ordered, the order cannot be sustained and must be quashed. Then remains the question of the correct pay scale at which petitioner retired. That can only be varied/altered after petitioner is granted an opportunity of hearing and that would operate only prospectively. Thus, State is permitted to initiate any proceeding in regard to variation of pensionary benefits on grounds of wrong fixation of pay scale/increments after giving opportunity of hearing and to defend the matter. Any decision taken therein would operate 3 prospectively and not retrospectively. With these observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded forthwith to him. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)