BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P[s1.No...§§5§§Zz../o9 / Ramesh Kumar Kori, S/Q Late Tula Ram Kori, Aged about 34 years, R/o H.No.4/733, Ay0dhya Nagax, Totabadi, Ring Road no.II, Bilaspur Dist, C.G. State. Petitioner Versus ‘ / 1). State of Chhatisgarh Through: Secretary, Public Works Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur Dist. CG State. . n2 Respondents: / 2) Chief Engineer, . Public Works Department, Bilaspur. CG State. 3) Executive Engineer, I r Public Works Department E' Division No. 1 , Bilaspur, CG State. WRIT PETITION‘ UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAIFOR ‘LSSUANgE OF APROBRIATE XVRIWS) / ORDER (S) / “was.“ DIREDCTION (S t, ETC. « , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU (Hon. Mr. Jystice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. (S) 2852 of 2009 PETlTlONER Ramesh Kumar KQri VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri K.R. Nair counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the respondents ORDER _ (9.12.2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P—1) passed by respondent No.3 directing recovery of the annual increments and allowances paid to the petitioner on account of not passing Hindi Typing examination. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 8.11.1996 (Annexure P—2) the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground in the regular pay scale of 950-1530 and time and again he was granted regular annual increments till 2005 and this fact is evident from the document of Annexure P—4. However, all of a sudden the order impugned has been passed directing for recovery of the said amount of annual increments on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of Hindi Typing examination. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the annual increments were granted to the petitioner by the respondents at ’_ their own and it is not the case where the petitioner had played any fraud or made any misrepresentation for obtaining those annual increments. He I submits that in the appointment order (Annexure P-2) it was not mentioned ‘ that the petitioner is required to pass Hindi Typing examination othen/vise “ he would have made efforts to pass the said examination He submits that even in the statutory recruitment rules passmg of any such typing examination is not mandatory for the post of Lower Div15lon Clerk and therefore the order impugned Is apparently bad In the eye of law w *Q__ 4. Supporting the order impugned it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents/State that the compassionate appointment was given t th petition on the basis an er f the geal ainisation detmet ated 1.6.1994 (Anne R—1) ad a er clau of the same s ciear mben ene or gon pass Typng exmat a g ag o es whichver is earlier. State counsel submit that if by mistake beefit is extnde to the petitioner, the sa ant be alled to ctinue and th State has every right to corect its mistake. o e er of ord o ner dmtr parn d 0 exur n s p se 20 it i that the incut is titld f reularizati only after ing Hindi i ainion or fter attainin the e f 40 yar e s some n ed me cno ow on e r 5. From he ppointment der of the ptitioner it i appaent tt no ndition was impsed the petitioner at he tie of apontnt that n n d n o ss Hidi i a es ce he a e as e s e t a or e s r ha co o on t m pime anual icrements woul be give t him only after his paing the n Typing examinaton. Though the ppointment order giv referen to t policy dted 10.6.1994, in th said policy it h been merly tated that th iubent would be entitled for relarization after passing Hindi yping ncm gu T exination. Hre this case, the petiti has nt sght for an reg n za suec e oh sns an men an ccn f eno on s am ne n ts ra o t am e in oner o ou y ularization and in fact the questio of regularition is not the bjt mattr. Even terwise, it is not the case of the repodent that nual increts were grted to the petitioner on aout of any raud or misreprestatin hi part. Thus even ssuing that the petitior was not entitled for any anual incremen, once it is gnted t the petiioner for none of his au on his part, the same cannot be tken back without affordig hi any opportunity of hearig. 6. Re-affirming its earlier view in the matter of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, in the matter of Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, 1994 2 SCC 521 and in the matter of State of Bihar and others v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (2009) 3 SCC 117, in a latest judgment in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others v. National Inst. Edu. Planning and , Admn. and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 288-289 of 2005 vide order dated 21.10.2010 it has been held by the Apex Court that no recovery of , the access amount paid to the petitioner can be made without affording hirn the opportunity of hearing. Practice of passing the orders involving civil’ consequences without giving show cause notice to the petitioner can flt a n m n r gD o longer be approved. Acting upon this legal position, this Court has also taken the same view in series of cases. 7. “3v ln view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the order impugned being bad in the eye of law is liable to be set aside. Petition is acoordingly allowed and order impugned is hereby quashgL ’ ' L Sd/— I‘v’ ‘ Pritinker Diwaker § Judge i , n