- (1.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that that the Petitioner is a retired Assistant Teacher and she has preferred this writ petition mainly for the reason that the oder passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 07/11.2.2009, annexure-3 to the memo of petition, whereby sizable amount of Rs. 77000/- has been ordered to be deducted, and the same has now also been recovered by the Respondents, by recalculating the total number of leave period as 144 days instead of 270 days. In fact the Petitioner retired on 31st December, 2006 and the total unused leave of 270 days was encashed and the amount was paid at Rs. 1,65,000/- and after about two years, unilaterally and arbitrarily the Respondents recalculated the encashable period as 144 days instead of 270 days without issuing any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. Moreover, Rule 231 of the Jharkhand Services Code, which has been referred by the Respondents, is also not applicable to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that an absolutely unilateral and arbitrary decision has been taken by the Respondents vide annexure-3 and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there was a mistake in calculating the leave period as 270 days and correct calculation is 144 days only and therefore, Rs. 77000/- has been ordered to be deducted from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner. Moreover, a detailed speaking order has been passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 07/11.2.2009 which is annexure 3 to the memo of petition.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby allow this writ application mainly for the following reasons: I) The Petitioner is a retired Assistant Teacher who retired from the services of the Respondents on 31st December, 2006 and was paid leave encashment at Rs. 1,65,000/- for 270 days' period. II) It appears that on 07/11.2.2009, Respondent No. 3 has unilaterally and arbitrarily ordered for recovery of the leave encashment from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner without issuing any show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. III) This This unilateral and arbitrary order is an ex parte decision taken by the Respondents. IV) It appears from the impugned order at annexure 3 passed by Respondent No. 3 that by way of Rule 231 of the Jharkhand Services Code, there is provision of recalculation of the leave period which is encashable. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Rule 231 is not at all applicable to the Petitioner as after about two years from the date of retirement of the Petitioner, the leave period has been recalculated unilaterally and arbitrarily without giving any show cause notice to the Petitioner or affording her an opportunity of being heard to her. Had the Petitioner been given some opportunity of being heard, she could have pointed out that calculation of 270 days leave is correct calculation, whereas there is error in calculation in 144 days leave. Moreover, Rule upon which Respondents are relying upon is not applicable to the Petitioner. But no opportunity was given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order.;