- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. All the respondents the represented by Standing Counsel. A counter-affidavit has been filed. Rejoinder- Affidavit has also been filed today in Court along with an application to grant interim order. Office to take the rejoinder-affidavit on record.
(2.) SINCE the in deciding ad interim order, Court is to consume the time in which the writ petition itself can be finally disposed of, it is deemed appropriate that writ petition may be heard finally. Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel have no objection The writ peti tion is, therefore, decided finally at this stage. The petitioner filed present writ petition contending that he was appointed as Cleaner in the Medical Department and thereafter adjusted against the post of Shilpi IV Detailed facts need not be given since the present writ petition can be decided on a short question of law which does not require addressing the facts. Briefly stated, contention of the petitioner is that he was initially accorded higher pay-scale but the order granting said benefit has been recailed without af fording an opportunity of hearing and thus he has been non-suited by impugned or ders dated March 23,1998 (Annexures-15 and 16 to the writ petition) consequence whereof his emoluments have been reduced. The petitioner is aggrieved that though an order prejudicing his right and interest has been passed, but he has not been afforded opportunity of hearing. Requisite averments have been made in paragraph 35 of the writ petition. In para graph 30 of the writ petition. In paragraph 30 of the writ petition itself it is stated that Respondent No. 4 had illegally and ar bitrarily recalled earlier order dated 22-11- 1997 only on the ground that it was passed due to clerical mistake. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23-3-1998 (Annexure-15) shows that the ground for recalling of the earlier order dated 22-11-1997 (which was passed in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 24-10-1997) was recalled as the same was passed due to clerical error/mistake. Consequent to the said order a consequential order dated 23-3-1998 (Annexure-16) was passed directing recovery of the excess payment.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsels for the parties and considering submissions at length it is borne out from the records that the statement contained in paragraph 35 of the writ petition (complaining that impugned order was passed without notice or affording opportunity of hearing) has not been denied by the Respondents in para graph 13 of the counter-affidavit. In fact, averments in paragraph 35 of the petition have not at all been controverter in para graph 13 of the counter-affidavit. There is no doubt that an authority is competent to recall its order provided it comes to the conclusion that the order was passed under some mistake or ignorance of relevant material on record. In view of the jacks of the instant case that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, impugned order dated 23-3-1998 (Annexure-15) whereby the earlier order granting revised pay-scale vide order dated 22-11-1997 was recalled as well as 23-3-1997 (Annexure-16 to the writ peti tion) directing for recovery of the excess payment are being set aside being in viola tion of principles of natural justice.;