In WP(C) No. 14575 of 2018- RAJ HC- ‘The fact that payment has been erroneously made to an employee cannot be taken to be excuse for not following fundamental principles of natural justice’: Rajasthan High Court while emphasising on the ‘right of being heard’
Justice Dinesh Mehta [19-05-2023]

Read Order: Vinod Kumar Shrimali v Maharana Pratap University

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 23, 2023: The Rajasthan High Court, while exercising its civil writ jurisdiction, allowed the petition which had questioned the office order dated 01-09-2018 whereby the salary of the six petitioners was refixed and abruptly reduced by the respondents. The Bench was of the view that in case an order has an adverse civil consequence, a citizen was required to be heard before passing such order.

“The fact that the payment has been erroneously made to an employee cannot be taken to be an excuse for not following the fundamental principles of natural justice,” said a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta.

In that matter at hand, the petitioner sought differential amount on the assertion that the petitioner were wrongly given higher pay scale than they were entitled to and the action of the respondents were illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners.

The respondents submitted that the petitioners were conferred benefit of selection pay however, due to inadvertence on completion of 9 years, they were given pay scale which ought to have been given on completion of 18 years. It was submitted that if wrong determination had been made due to inadvertence or otherwise, the University could correct its error and recover the excess amount which had been given to the petitioners.

The Court stated that the impugned office order which had been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice was liable to be quashed. “This being the position, without commenting upon right of the petitioners to get a particular salary or the respondents' right to recover the same, the present writ petition is allowed on solitary ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice.”

The Bench stated that in case the University proposes to proceed against the petitioners, it will be required of the University to give seven days' notice to the petitioners indicating the proposed grounds on the basis whereof the university seeks to refuse the petitioners pay scale they are/were getting and the consequential recovery. Further the notice was to be sent by the University by Registered post at the address given in the memo of the writ petition on or before 31-05-2023 to which the petitioners would be required to submit their reply before the Registrar of the University by 15-06-2023. The Registrar-University or the competent authority of the University would  consider petitioners' representation and take an informed and reasoned decision within a period of 15 days' of receipt of the reply. Once a decision was taken, the University would be free to give effect to such decision in accordance with law. The petitioners' right to challenge any such decision, if prejudicial to their interest or rights would stand reserved. “Until the final decision is taken by the respondent-University pursuant to above direction, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners.”