Administrative decisions involving recovery of increments taken without prior notice or hearing violate principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Commerce) appointed on 12.11.2012, was granted three Advanced Pay Increments (API) for possessing an M.Phil. degree pursuant to a Circular dated 30.03.2010.

On 25.06.2024, a subsequent Circular was issued reducing the entitlement for M.Phil. holders from three increments to two.

Following this, Respondent No. 2 issued an order on 19.07.2024 directing the recovery of the "excess" increment from the petitioner’s date of appointment.

On 24.04.2026, Respondent No. 3 issued a communication seeking the petitioner’s response regarding the recovery, which the petitioner challenged on the grounds that the 2024 Circular was not retrospective and the action violated principles of natural justice.

1. Whether the impugned recovery proceedings initiated via the communication dated 24.04.2026 were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the respondents exhibited a pre-determined mind in deciding to recover the increments without providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied the fundamental principles of natural justice, which require that no person be deprived of their rights without a fair hearing.

It further relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits arbitrary state action and requires administrative authorities to act with an objective evaluation of facts rather than a premeditated mindset.

The Court observed that the communication dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/9), while ostensibly asking for the petitioner’s response, indicated that the respondents had already finalized the decision to effect the recovery.

The Court noted that the State failed to produce evidence of any prior notice or effective hearing granted to the petitioner before this decision was reached.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had legally acquired the M.Phil. degree and benefits under the then-prevailing 2010 policy, any state action to withdraw those benefits must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

The Court found the impugned order to be a result of a "pre-determined mind," rendering the administrative process a mere formality.

It quashed the impugned communication dated 24.04.2026 and granted the respondents liberty to proceed in accordance with the law, provided they afford the petitioner a due and adequate opportunity of hearing; the writ petition was allowed to this extent.