The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and fair play, particularly in the context of pension revision and recovery, as mandated by Rule 202 of Jharkhand Pension Rules.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“That by the instant application the petitioners pray for quashing of the orders as contained in letter no. 31 dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure-6/4) issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Finance Department, respondent no. 3 and followed by the order as contained in letter no. 89 dated 24.3.2011 (Annexure-6/1), order contained in letter no. 90 dated 24.3.2011 (Annexure-6/2) and order contained in letter no. 88 dated 24.3.2011 (Annexure-6/3), all issued under the signature of the District Treasury Officer, Lohardaga, respondent no. 4 in respect of the petitioners/and further for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to restore the monthly pension as was fixed and paid in pursuance of 6 pay revision as adopted by the Government of Jharkhand which was subsequently lowered down to a less pension since May, 2010 without any appropriate order and without letting the petitioners know as to under which provision the said action was taken by the respondents.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were superannuated on different dates from the post of village level worker, whereas the petitioner No. 2 retired from the post of office superintendent. The details with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have been given in paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition. The date of retirement of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are 31.07.2002, 31.07.2002, 30.11.2000 and 31.08.2002 respectively. Learned counsel has referred to paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition which gives the details of the pension which was fixed. He also refers to Para 16 and submits that as per the table mentioned in Para 15, the pension of the petitioners was fixed under Part-B and the petitioners were drawing the pension accordingly.

4. The learned counsel submits that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without any notice, the pension was reduced and an order of recovery was also made by the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 series which are under challenge in the present proceedings. The learned counsel has submitted that the pension was rightly fixed under part-B and the respondents have wrongly reduced the pension under part-A. He submits that such action on the part of the respondents is ex-facie illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and therefore the impugned orders of reduction of pension and direction of recovery are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has also referred to rule 202 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules to submit that even as per the said rule, prior to taking such action, a notice is required to be given.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners being pensioners have given an undertaking that in case of any error of calculation, the pension can be reduced and re-calculated. He submits that as per the supplementary affidavit, the respondents have invoked this undertaking of the petitioners to revise the pension. Learned counsel has further submitted that the pension has been revised and it appears that a letter dated 15.07.2011 was issued by the Under Secretary of the Finance Department who had ultimately found that the reduction of pension was in accordance with law.

6. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that no notice or an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners prior to revising their pension and passing the order of recovery. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners can be looked into by respondent No. 3.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it is not in dispute that the pension of the