The High Court allowed this writ petition challenging orders changing the petitioner's date of birth and ordering recovery from his retired pension. The Court set aside the impugned orders due to violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard prior to these adverse actions.
The orders dated 07.12.15, 12.01.16, and 30.05.16 were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14838/2016
Shimbhu Dayal S/o Shri Jumma Ram, Village Harchandpur, Post Santhalaka, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Pareek on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
27/07/2020 .
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 7.12.15 (Annexure-8), 12.01.16 (Annexure-9) & 30.5.16 (Annexure-12).
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper on 13.01.1974 and retired from service on 30.06.2015 from the post of SSA-II vide order dated 30.06.2015. After retirement of the petitioner from service the respondents vide order dated 07.12.15 changed the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record and thereafter vide order dated 30.05.2016 issued an order of recovery against the petitioner.
(2 of 3)
[CW-14838/2016]
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.15 (Annexure 8) as well as order dated 30.5.16 (Annexure 12), the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not misrepresented to the respondent Department with regard to his date of birth and the respondents on their own have changed the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record and also issued the recovery order. Counsel further submits that action of the respondents in issuing the orders dated 07.12.15 and 30.05.16 respectively is arbitrary, illegal and same is in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was never heard by the Department prior to issuance of such orders.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the record of the petiitioner was with their local office and when the fact regarding overwriting in the age in his service book came to the notice of the Head office then the process for correction was started. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of entry in the service the petitioner was below 18 years of age.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, prior to passing of the order dated 07.12.15 (Annexure-8) as well as the order dated 30.05.16 (Annexure-12) no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and as such action of the respondent, in my considered view, is in violation of principles of natural justice, secondly, the respondents have not taken any disciplinary action against the erring officers of their Department, thirdly, the petitioner has
(3 of 3)
[CW-14838/2016]
worked with the department satisfactorily and during his service period, no such objection was raised by the respondents.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7.12.15 (Annexure-8), 12.01.16 (Annexure-9) & 30.5.16 (Annexure-12) are set aside.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /95
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents violated principles of natural justice by changing the petitioner's date of birth in the service record and issuing a recovery order without an opportunity of hearing.
Whether the departments failure to take disciplinary action against the erring officers negated the petitioner's rights.
Shimbhu Dayal S/o Shri Jumma Ram
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
