IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8583 of 2010 1. Santosh Kumar, S/O Late Amarendra Kumar, Scientific Assistant, Forensic Science Laboratory Cum Secretary,F.S.L. Technical Workers Union Bailey Road,Patna. Permanent Resident Of Village Kumar Wajitpur, P.S. Patepur, District- Vaishali. 2. Vijay Kumar, S/O Late Sachchidanand Shrivastava, Scientific Assistant, F.S.L., Bailey Road,Patna,Resident Of Mohalla - Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar,P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna-23. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director General Of Police, Old Secretaritat, Bihar,Patna. 3. Home Commissioner, Department Of Home, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Director General Of Police (Crime Investigation Department), Old Secretariat,Bihar, Patna. 5. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Bihar, Patna. 7. The In-Charge Director, F.S.L. Bihar, Patna, 8. The Police Superintendent (C) Crime Investigation Department. For the Petitioner: Prabhakar Jha, Adv. For the State: Yashwant Kumar Chaman, A.C. to S.C. 25. 4/ 13/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners who are stated to be working in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar at Patna are aggrieved by the orders dated 8.2.2010 by which the training allowance at the rate of 15% of the basic pay has been cancelled. They are further aggrieved by the subsequent order dated 13.3.2011/1.4.2011 by which recovery has been ordered of the training allowance 2 already paid to them. The occasion for judicial review of an order shall arise after there is an administrative order in accordance with law. If on the face of the order they suffer from a serious infirmity in the decision making process itself, the question of the Court adjudicating whether the petitioners are entitled to the training allowances or not is yet to arrive. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the training allowance was granted to them by a reasoned order dated 11.12.2009 at annexure-7. It has been cancelled by a non-speaking order on 8.2.2010. The latter visits them with adverse civil consequences of recovery by orders dated 31.3.2011/1.4.2011. The counter affidavit acknowledges that the petitioners were appointed for imparting training, but attempts to limit their status as part timers. Before an order adverse to a person ordering recovery can be passed against him he has a right to be heard. This becomes more important when the benefit was given in pursuance of an order issued. The petitioners have to be given a right to defend the benefit. It is not in controversy between counsel for the parties that no such opportunity was given to the petitioners. The orders dated 8.2.2010 and 31.3.2011/1.4.2011 are 3 not sustainable on that limited ground alone. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside, but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)