The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard before withdrawing benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

JUDGMENT :

D.N. Patel, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred mainly challenging the order, passed by respondent No. 4, dated 23rd November, 2007 (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition), whereby, the benefits given to the petitioners under Assured Career Progression, have been withdrawn.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that looking to the order at Annexure 5, it appears that for no justifiable reasons, the benefits given to the petitioners under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, with effect from 29th October, 2003, has been withdrawn, vide order dated 23rd November, 2007, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Even otherwise also, no reasons for withdrawing the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme have been given in the impugned orders and the reasons are to be presumed by the petitioners or by the respondents and looking to the counter affidavit, it appears that some reasons have been given that the petitioners have not cleared Accountancy Examination. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this is not an eligibility criteria, at all. No such circular, rule or regulation has ever been pointed out by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that had an opportunity of being heard been given to the petitioner, they would have pointed out to the concerned authority that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have already been exempted from Accountancy Examination. The same has been reflected at Annexures 4 and 4/A. to the memo of petition. Nonetheless, it is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this is not a requirement, at all, for grant of the benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme, under any circular or my rule or any regulation. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is a non-speaking order end subsequently, in a counter affidavit, no reasons can be supplied to a non-speaking order, otherwise, all non-speaking and void orders will be converted into speaking and valid orders, by filing counter affidavit and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are working since last more than two decades, sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any show cause notice has been given to any of the petitioners for any misconduct, whatsoever, and because of their sincere services and as certain period of service are over, the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme had been given to the petitioner with effect from 29th October, 2003, which cannot be withdrawn abruptly, without any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard, vide order dated 23rd November, 2007 and, therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that wrongly given benefits cannot be continued to be availed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not cleared Accountancy Examination, which is the required eligibility criteria for grant of the benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme and no sooner did this fact bring to the to the notice of the higher officer, a wrongly given benefit has been withdrawn vide order dated 23rd November, 2007 and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:

(i) The petitioners were appointed somewhere in the year 1973 to 1974. Thus, they are working since last approximately more than two decades, sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents.

(ii) Considering the services, rendered by the petitioners for several years and considering t