HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6740/2009 Mr Hemant Pondrik S/o Late Shri Narain Dutt Pondrik, his age about 27 years, resident of C/o 105 Brahma Marg, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary of the Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur No.2. 2. The Director Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.) 4. The Chairman, Municipal Council, Shahpura District Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mootha JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/02/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the respondents by which recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, whereby he has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.94215/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Counsel submits that excess amount was paid to the petitioner by the respondents for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. Counsel submits that once the (2 of 3) [CW-6740/2009] payment of salary has been made by the respondents, the same cannot be recovered by passing the order impugned. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Goverdhan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2004 (1) RLR 347. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that compassionate appointment was given to the petitioner on probation for a period of two years on fixed remuneration. Counsel submits that by mistake, regular pay was made to the petitioner and when this fact came into notice of the authorities, immediately thereafter, the mistake was rectified and the order impugned was passed, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Without going into the controversy of the matter and looking to the fact that the impugned order has been passed straightaway without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and the principle of natural justice requires that before passing any adverse order against a person, at least, he should be given an opportunity of hearing, but in the instant case, the respondents have failed to do so, hence, on this (3 of 3) [CW-6740/2009] count alone, the impugned order dated 14.05.2009 stands quashed and set aside. 7. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/62