- (1.)HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.)IT is stated by the petitioner that she was appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 28.6.1981. She had appeared for the Special Qualifying Examination and the results were published in the month of December, 1981. By an order, dated 20.2.1982, the petitioner had been appointed as a regular candidate, from 28.6.1981. Her probation was also declared, on 31.12.1984 and her services were regularised, with effect from 28.6.1981. IT has also been stated that the cancellation of the probation by the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 29.8.96, and the consequential order of recovery, dated 11.9.96, issued by the third respondent are arbitrary, illegal and void.
The petitioner has also stated that her probation had been declared, on 27.6.83, based on which annual increments had been given to her. However, by the impugned order of the third respondent, the increments granted to the petitioner are sought to be recovered. It has also been submitted that no notice had been given to the petitioner before the order of cancellation of probation has been passed. Further, when such an order has been passed after twelve years after the declaration of probation, the increments granted to the petitioner cannot be recovered in accordance with the order passed by the third respondent, on 11.9.96, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order, especially, when the increments were not given to the petitioner based on her misrepresentation.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of recovery, dated 11.9.96, had been passed by the third respondent. Further, there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner, based on which the increments were given to the petitioner.

(3.)THE learned counsel has also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had set aside the orders issued by the concerned authorities attempting to recover the amounts paid as salary, increments and other allowances. THE learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, dated 26.3.2008, made in W.P.No.36514 of 2007.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had not refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.