Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. : 15605 of 2008. (O.A. No. 2311/2007) Date of Decision : 14.07. 2011. Sh. Rattan Chand Jhagta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Devinder Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): The present Original Application was filed by the petitioner in the State Administrative Tribunal. After its abolition, it was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.15605/2008. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the Education Department of the State. He was appointed untrained JBT teacher on 06.07.1967. But in the year 1971, he completed his ‘JBT training course’ from Hamirpur. On 30.06.2006, he retired from the service on attaining the - 2 - age of superannuation, his retiral benefits were not released to him. When he contacted the office of Respondent-Department, he was told that his matter was under consideration. Later the Respondent- Department issued a memo vide No.EDN –H(11) (Pry (B) 6) 11-10/2003 dated 26.02.2005 (Annexure A-1) for effecting the recovery of excess amount pursuant to re-fixation of pay. 3. The circular aforesaid has been assailed in the present petition on the ground of principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was accorded and Sh. Devinder Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that no recovery from the petitioner after his retirement can be effected especially when the petitioner has no hand in fixation of his pay. 4. The respondents did not file reply despite the repeated opportunities. Vide order dated 26.05.2010 by way of indulgence, last opportunity was accorded to the respondents to file reply within four weeks as prayed by the learned Sr. Additional Advocate General. It was further ordered that while filing reply, the respondents shall consider the fact that in the case - 3 - of similarly situated persons directions already stand issued by the Tribunal not to recover the amount which was inadvertently disbursed to such JBT teachers. The matter was ordered to be listed on 15.07.2010. 5. Despite the aforesaid orders, again the respondents did not file reply nor any request was made before expiry of time accorded for extending time. 6. It is painful to note that the respondents lost its sensitivity towards the persons who have served the Government for a long time and have retired, they are striving hand to seek redressal for no fault on their part. 7. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General although seeks one more opportunity to file the reply, which in the aforesaid circumstances can not be granted and the right to file the reply by the respondents is hereby closed. 8. Otherwise also, on merits the impugned order/ circular Annexure A-1 is sustainable, it deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was adversely affected by not according an opportunity of being heard. No show-cause notice was issued against the alleged - 4 - recovery. It violates the principle of natural justice, as he was condemned unheard. It is also not shown whether the petitioner had any hand in fixation of his pay or he had misrepresented or committed fraud. 9. It is a settled law that the recovery of excess payment can not be made from an employee where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on his part on equity jurisdiction so as to avoid hardship to an employee as in the present case a retiree, who is not at fault. In support, I put my reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Quadir and others Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the order/circular (Annexure A-1) qua the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which it shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date it fell due. 11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms so as also the pending application, if any. Copy Dasti. 14th July, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma Judge.