Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, while holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in June, 2009 and when the retiral benefits were not released by the respondents, he approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.
(2.) However, in the reply filed by the respondents, it has been averred that the benefit of third selection grade, which was granted to the petitioner, was erroneous and taking note thereof, the benefit of third selection grade was revised and granted to him w.e.f. 07.09.2007 vide Order dt. 23.10.2009 and at the same time, it was Ordered to make recovery from the salary of the petitioner on account of re-fixation of pay. For the first time, the order by which the benefit of third selection grade was revised by the respondents, was passed prejudicial to his interest. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been specifically averred that the benefit of third selection grade granted to him w.e.f. 07.09.1998 was reviewed and granted to him w.e.f. 07.09.2007 vide Order dt. 23.10.2009 and the recovery which has been Ordered apart from re-fixation of pay and the retiral benefits have been accordingly revised without affording opportunity of hearing to him and their action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Copy of the rejoinder was served upon the respondents on 09.08.2010 and sufficient time was granted to respondents to take note of the objections raised by the petitioner but no contrary material has come on record.
(3.) Indisputably, the fact remains that the date on which the petitioner retired from service in June, 2009, he was holding the benefit of third selection grade w.e.f. 07.09.1998 and it is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner at any point of time concealed any material fact or mis-represented the respondents and after he stood retired, a notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the Order dt. 23.10.2009 and it revealed to the respondents after the notice of the present writ petition was served regarding entitlement of third election grade granted to him and the order impugned dt. 23.10.2009 was passed by the respondents reviewing the benefit of third selection grade w.e.f. 07.09.2007. Certainly, the civil rights of the petitioner conferred upon him, were prejudiced on account of passing of the order by the respondents dt. 23.10.2009 and before affecting the civil rights of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and it is a cardinal principle of administrative law that no one should be condemned unheard.;