Quashed

Mohan Singh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Home Deptt

Jharkhand HC10 May 2023WPC/2137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a letter directing the petitioner to refund excess salary upon superannuation. The High Court held that the authority failed to provide a prior hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned letter was quashed and the matter was remanded for a fresh order after hearing.

What did the court decide?

The letter dated 08.02.2023 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner within four weeks.

Mohan Singh Yadav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2137 of 2021 Mohan Singh Yadav ... Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶4

Superintendent of Police, Collectriate Building, Koderma … Respondents --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)-III --- Order No. 04 Dated 10^th May, 2023

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.

¶7

In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter as contained in memo No. 25 dated 08.02.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been asked to refund the excess amount paid to him during his service tenure to the tune of Rs. 7,59,350/-.

¶8

The petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in November, 1986 in Police Centre, Giridih and he has superannuated from service on 31.01.2023 from the post of Hawaldar-cum-Driver. Immediately on superannuation of the petitioner on 31.01.2023, he was served with a communication dated 08.02.2023 by which it was indicated that the petitioner was paid excess salary to the tune of Rs. 7,59,350/- and he was directed to return the said amount immediately on receipt of the letter in question.

¶9

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner was not heard prior to issuing of the letter as contained in memo No. 25 dated 08.02.2023. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had neither committed any fraud or misrepresentation and therefore any excess payment made to the petitioner cannot be subjected to realization.

¶10

Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned S.C. (Mines)-III has submitted by referring to a representation of the petitioner that the petitioner was aware about the excess salary being paid to him which has been brought to the notice of the concerned authority by the petitioner himself.

¶11

It appears that so far as the contention of the learned S.C. (Mines)-III is concerned, the representation which has been brought on record does not relate

¶12

¶13

to any admission on the part of the petitioner that excess salary was being drawn by him. It also appears that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned letter dated 08.02.2023.

¶14

In such circumstances, therefore since the letter dated 08.02.2023 is in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶15

This writ application stands disposed of.

¶16

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)

¶17

Mohan Singh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Home Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Home Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Subhash Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Additional Chief Secretary Deptt of Health

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Rohit Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Man Mohan Varma Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Registration Revenue and Land Reforms

Kirtan Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandhya Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand