Veer Bahadur Sah Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Veer Bahadur Sah Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of finally with the above directions: respondent no. 4 to issue show cause notice regarding incorrect fixation of salary; petitioner to tender reply; controversy to be decided by speaking order within one month; petitioner to be paid salary as determined in the impugned order with no recovery of excess salary till final decision; impugned order to abide by the final order; petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the excess salary paid to the petitioner, sought to be recovered through the impugned order which visits the petitioner with penal consequences, could stand when no opportunity of hearing was given prior to the impugned order. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent's counsel does not dispute that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the impugned order.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order admittedly visits the petitioner with penal consequences.

Key takeaways

The principles of natural justice are not cast in any strait jacket formula; their requirements are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice, and in appropriate cases the law of natural justice recognises the concept of post decisional hearing (relying on Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, (2015) 8 SCC 519).ratio¶12
In view of the facts of the case and the position of law laid down by the Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice; the matter is remitted to respondent no. 4 with directions.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. 19004 of 2024, Veer Bahadur Sah v. State of U.P. and 3 others), Allahabad High Court, Court No. 5, decided 12.3.2025 by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J. — disposed of finally. Subject: recovery sought, by the impugned order, of excess salary paid to the petitioner. The impugnmed order visits the petitioner with penal consequences and was passed without any pre-decisional hearing, which respondent's counsel expressly did not dispute. Relying on Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, (2015) 8 SCC 519, the court held that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any strait jacket formula, their requirements being adapted to the facts of the case, and that in appropriate cases a post decisional hearing subserves the ends of justice. Matter remitted to respondent no. 4 with directions: (i) show cause notice to petitioner regarding incorrect fixation of salary; (ii) petitioner to tender a reply; (iii) controversy to be decided by a speaking order within one month; (iv) petitioner to be paid salary as determined in the impugned order, but no recovery of excess salary till the final decision is taken; (v) impugned order to abide by the final order; (vi) petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings. Counsel agreed that a post decisional hearing would subserve the ends of justice.