1 2025:CGHC:42624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2181 of 2019 1 - Gopal Krishna Agrawal S/o Late Shri D.K.Agarawal Aged About 81 Years R/o G- 5 Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-The Additional Director (Finance), Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Block-4, 4th Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District-Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Venktesh Pandey, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 22.08.2025 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or writs for quashing the impugned order dated 02.03.19 (Annexure-P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.08.23 16:55:25 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to his petition would submit that the petitioner was the employee of Special Area Development Authority (for short ‘SADA’), Bhilai and he was retired from the service prior to merging of SADA Bhilai with Municipal Corporation, Bhilai on 09.6.1998, but he was not granted pension. He would further submit that in the light of order dated 08.02.2016 passed by this Court in WPS No.4459/2014 and two other cases, vide order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure P/5) issued by the State Government, service period of the employees of SADA, who were working in the Municipal Corporation, was ordered to be counted for granting pension to them. On the basis of that order, petitioner was granted pension vide Order dated 15.10.2018 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter he got pension for about 2-3 months, but abruptly, vide impugned order dated 02.3.2019 (Annexure-P/1), earlier order granting pension to him dated 15.10.2018 (Annexure-P/6) had been cancelled and it was further ordered that pension be recovered from him. 3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by counting past services rendered by petitioner, he was granted pension in light of Circular dated 23.02.2017 issued by the State Government but, without providing opportunity of hearing, impugned order dated 02.3.2019 (Annexure P/1) has been passed holding therein that petitioner is not entitled to get pension and recovery order was also made against him without following principles of natural justice. Whereas, it is settled position in administrative law, that it is mandatory to provide an opportunity of being heard when an administrative action results in civil consequences to a person or entity. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of State of Orissa v. Dr.(Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 wherein two- Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice. It is further contended that, in the matter of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 3 (1978) 1 SCC 248, a seven-judge bench of Supreme Court held that any person prejudicially affected by a decision of the authority entailing civil consequences must be given an opportunity of being heard. Relying upon the above decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray that this petition may be disposed of by quashing impugned orders dated 02.3.2019 and further directing the respondent authorities/competent authority that appropriate order may be passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, till that, effect of stay order passed by this Court on 27.3.2019 may be extended. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents 1 & 2 would submit that impugned order (Annexure-P/1) itself is self explanatory, but considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has extended his support to the submission made by learned counsel for the State. 6. Vide impugned order dated 02.3.2019, order for granting pension to petitioner was cancelled and the pension granted to him has also been directed to be recovered from him. Once, order for granting pension has been passed and the same has been complied with, then cancellation of said order have effect on civil consequences. 7. In the case of Mangilal Vs. State of MP (2004) 2 SCC 447, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: “10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. 4 The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validity made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.[...]” (emphasis supplied) 8. While considering, as to whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475, has also taken similar view that principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. 9. In the case of Canara Bank vs. VK Awasthy (2005) 6 SCC 321, a two-judge bench of Supreme Court succinctly summarized the history, scope and application of the principles of natural justice to administrative actions involving civil consequences in the following terms:- 5 “14. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression “civil consequences” encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non- pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.” (emphasis supplied) 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts in a catena of decisions, time and again, reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of CG and ors., [WP(S) No. 3663 of 2009] and other connected matters], decided on 23 rd November, 2009, observed as under :- “10. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment..........”. 11. In the instant case, petitioner was granted pension on the basis of circular dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-P/5) issued by Government of Chhattisgarh and he was granted pension, however, vide impugned 6 order, granting pension to him was not only revoked, but pension granted to him was also ordered to be recovered from him. But, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him prior to passing the impugned order. However, the respondents have stated in their reply that since the petitioner was retired prior to merger of SADA, Bhilai into Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit of order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-P/5) issued by the State Government. 12. If aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the respondents are taken into count despite that, in view of aforesaid settled principle of law, petitioner is entitled to get opportunity of hearing prior to passing of aforesaid impugned order, by following principles of natural justice which has not been followed in instant case. 13. in view of the above facts-situation of the case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by this Court and further considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of at this juncture, by quashing impugned order dated 02.3.2019 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.2 and further the respondent authorities/competent authority is directed that after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed in accordance with applicable law/order/ circulars. It is further observed that, aforesaid exercise be concluded within 90 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order. The State counsel is directed to submit a copy of this order before the respondents/competent authority for compliance. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with respondents/ competent authority to decide the matter within stipulated period. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 27.3.2019, this Court granted stay with regard to effect and operation of the impugned order, which is still in operation and as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, pension is being granted to petitioner. In this circumstance, it is ordered that order granting stay with regard to effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain in operation till passing of order by 7 respondent/competent authority, subject to the condition that petitioner shall cooperate for early disposal of his case with regard to grant of pension, also by filing a copy of this order. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 16. With aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE pathak