IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14310 of 2008 CHANDRA KET NARAYAN SINGH, S/O LATE RAM SAKAL SINGH, R/O VISHUNPURA, P.S.-CHAPRA MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-SARAN. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN. 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SARAN. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 09.11.2011 From the facts as appearing from the records it appears that in the light of a star-marked question in Vidhan Sabha action was initiated against the petitioner and honorarium of Rs.1000/- per month paid to the petitioner for the period August, 2004 to November, 2005, (a total sum of Rs.16000/-), was recovered from the petitioner. Case of the respondents is that the petitioner was a regular employee and, hence, he was not entitled to honorarium for extra work under RNTPC Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the orders of the Civil Surgeon, as contained in Annexure-5, petitioner was compelled to deposit the amount to avoid any further legal action 2 against him. He submits that before this order was issued petitioner was not given any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing in the matter. He further submits that he was entrusted with the work under the Scheme under valid orders of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Health Department. He submits that an appropriate inquiry was therefore required to be made in the matter before any order of recovery could be issued directing him to deposit the amount in treasury. Facts show that only in the light of a star-marked question in the Vidhan Sabha the respondents have issued the said order. They have not held any inquiry and have not examined the matter as to whether the order of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary appointing the petitioner to work under the Scheme on extra honorarium was valid or not. Clearly the respondents have acted mechanically only to answer the question in the Vidhan Sabha without examining legality and validity of the action. In the circumstances, the order of recovery, as contained in Annexure-5, is 3 bad in law and the same is therefore quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was in any way instrumental in getting that order issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary in his favour, the respondents are also restrained from taking any further action against the petitioner in the matter. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)