An acted-upon benefit cannot be withdrawn without affording the beneficiary an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners, serving as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools in District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, had completed ten years of service and claimed entitlement to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the applicable Government circulars.

Pursuant to directions of the High Court, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, granted the benefit to the petitioners by order dated 06.12.2019, which was acted upon and implemented.

Subsequently, by order dated 04.01.2020, the benefit was cancelled with immediate effect, allegedly in compliance with a competent authority’s letter dated 23.09.2019, without issuing notice or granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners challenged the cancellation order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the respondents could cancel the already-granted and implemented benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman without issuing notice or affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing?

2. Whether the cancellation order dated 04.01.2020 was liable to be set aside for violating the principles of natural justice?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, which requires that a person be given notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse administrative order affecting accrued or implemented rights is passed.

The Court also recognized that benefits granted under applicable Government circulars and pursuant to a prior judicial direction, once acted upon, could not be withdrawn without following a fair procedure and passing a reasoned order.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the order dated 06.12.2019 granting Kramonnati Vetanman had already been acted upon and implemented in favour of the petitioners.

Its subsequent cancellation adversely affected the petitioners’ service-related benefits. Since the respondents cancelled the benefit without notice or an opportunity of hearing, they failed to comply with the principles of natural justice.

The respondents’ justification that the cancellation was directed by the competent authority and that the earlier grant was contrary to applicable instructions did not cure the procedural defect.

Accordingly, the Court held that the cancellation order could not be sustained and that the matter required fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners.

The matter was remitted to Respondent No. 6, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, to reconsider the issue after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within three months from receipt of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.