HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17682/2013 Gopal Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Plot No. 7-A, Shiv Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Hatwara Road, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle , Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. The Assistant Engineer, Revenue Sub Division-Vi South, Public Health Engineering Department, Chitrakoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Rana for Ms. Minkashi Jain, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.03.2009 by which the order of recovery has been initiated against the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of granting benefit of revised fixation/stepping up of the salary of the petitioner vide order dated 14.09.1995, the person junior to the petitioner Mr. Ram Gopal was granted higher pay then him. Counsel submits that without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, (2 of 3) [CW-17682/2013] straightaway the order impugned has been passed without assigning any reason. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents-State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that inadvertently wrong fixation of the salary of petitioner was done and excess amount was paid to the petitioner which was rightly ordered to be recovered vide order dated 06.03.2009. Counsel submits that as a consequence of the above order, the amount has been recovered and the petitioner has not assailed the aforesaid action of the respondents till the date of his retirement. Counsel submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2011 and after expiry of more than five years, he has approached this Court, hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Without going into the controversy involved in the present writ petition and looking to the fact that the order impugned has been passed without assigning any reason and without issuing any notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that such action on the part of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. (3 of 3) [CW-17682/2013] 6. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever any adverse order is passed against a person, at least an opportunity of hearing is required to be given, but in the instant case, no such opportunity has been granted to the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Needless to observe that the fresh order would be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents would pass a reasoned speaking order. 10. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/148