Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Kalpna – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5434 of 2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Exemption - Writ Petition - The court allowed the exemption subject to just exceptions and disposed of the application. The writ petition sought to quash an order stopping the grant of Dearness Relief over the petitioner's Pro-Rata Pension and to issue directions for the grant of dearness relief and return of wrongly recovered amounts. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, followed by a final decision. If recovery is not to be effected, the amount already recovered shall be returned to the petitioner with interest. The petitioner may seek remedy before the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash an order and issue directions for the grant of dearness relief and return of wrongly recovered amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, followed by a final decision. If recovery is not to be effected, the amount already recovered shall be returned to the petitioner with interest. The petitioner may seek remedy before the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order stopping the grant of Dearness Relief and the recovery of wrongly paid amounts, as well as the procedural fairness in issuing the impugned order without a Show Cause Notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of a Show Cause Notice before issuing the impugned order, as well as the precedent set in a similar case where the impugned order was set aside, and a Show Cause Notice was directed to be issued.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, directed the respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, and allowed for the return of recovered amounts with interest if recovery is not to be effected. The petitioner was also given the option to seek remedy before the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 21273/2023 (Seeking Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5434/2023 & CM APPL. 21272/2023
3. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to Quash the order dated 14.09.2022 hereby the Respondents stopped grant of Dearness Relief over Petitioner's Pro-Rata Pension and also directed recovery of the Dearness Relief already paid;
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus for Issuing directions to the respondents to grant dearness relief on top of the petitioner's pension and to return the amount of dearness relief wrongly recovered from the petitioner on the frivolous pretext of dearness relief being wrongly paid to the petitioner; and
(iii) Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing on advance Notice has not disputed the facts that the impugned Order dated 14.09.2022 has been issued without issuing the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner.
5. Similar issue came up before this Court in W.P (C) No.4295/2011 and the impugned Order was set aside vide Order dated 14.07.2011 by directing the respondents to issue Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and thereafter to take action as per law.
6. In view of the above, we hereby dispose of the present petition by setting aside the Order dated 14.09.2022 and direct the respondents to issue Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and after seeking the reply and personal hearing of the petitioner, the final decision shall be taken by the respondents.
7. We hereby make it clear that if the respondents are of the view that the recovery is not to be effected from the petitioner, then the amount already recovered shall be returned to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of realization.
8. Needless to the say if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, she may seek the remedy before the appropriate Forum.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
10. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
Procedural fairness and the requirement for a Show Cause Notice before taking adverse action were central to the court's decision.
Violation of natural justice in issuing orders affecting the rights of a pensioner and the empowerment of respondents to correct the scale of pay and revision of pension in accordance with the applic....
The court held that administrative recovery of overpaid amounts requires prior notice and adherence to principles of natural justice, affirming that arbitrary orders violate constitutional rights.
Erroneous fixation of pay or pension can be corrected, but recovery after retirement causing hardship is not sustainable without evidence of misrepresentation or written undertakings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
