IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6829 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Secretary cum Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 4. The Director Accounts, Postal, Exhibition Road, Patna 5. The Director Postal Service, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 6. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Samastipur Division, Samastipur 7. The Post Master, Samastipur Head Post Office, Samastipur through Ram Babu Singh s/o Late Kedar Prasad, r/o village and P.O. Rampur Hari, P.S. Meenapur, District Muzaffarpur .... Respondents- Petitioner/s Versus Md.Anwar Alam son of Late Md. Nazir Alam, resident of village and P.O. Jitwarpur Chauth, Police Station- Samastipur Muffasil, District Samastipur .... Applicant- Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : --- ====================================================== 2 06-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order of the learned Tribunal dated 1st October, 2010 whereby O.A. No.434 of 2007 has been allowed only in part. The applicant/ respondent was aggrieved by an order for deposit of Rs.29,817 on account of overpayment which was deducted in course of refixation of pay of the applicant as per observation of Director Accounts (Postal), Patna The only ground for interfering with the order for recovery and for directing to refund the recovered amount to the respondent with statutory interest is the admitted lacuna in the procedure under which no opportunity of hearing was given to the Patna High Court CWJC No.6829 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2011 2 applicant/ respondent before taking adverse decision against him for refixation of his pay and for recovery. The main grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal should have left the matter open for redecision by the authorities after giving notice and opportunity of hearing. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the matter has been left open and in fact, the petitioners who were respondents, have been directed to review the refixation of pay etc. and for that the applicant was directed to make a representation on the relevant issues within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondents i.e. petitioners herein have to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation of the applicant. In our view, the order of the Tribunal requires no interference because the matter has been left open to be redetermined by the petitioners but after giving notice and opportunity of filing a representation or hearing to the applicant/ respondent. We only make it clear that in case the applicant/ respondent herein has chosen not to file any representation in that event the petitioners shall review the refixation of pay of the applicant after giving him notice and opportunity of hearing. Patna High Court CWJC No.6829 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2011 3 The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)