Facts
The petitioners, Senior Accounts Clerks, challenged Memo No. 187 dated 19 February 2020, by which the authorities cancelled or modified their previously granted Second MACP benefits, revised the dates of entitlement, and directed recovery of alleged excess payments
Source reference: p. 2, 5The petitioners relied on Ratnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 10638 of 2020, in which an order concerning the same issue had been set aside for want of a hearing
Source reference: p. 3–5The State sought an adjournment, stating that it had not received the relevant file; the Court noted that the petition had been pending since 2022 and no counter-affidavit had been filed
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling or modifying the petitioners’ Second MACP benefits and directing recovery could stand when it was made without giving them an opportunity to be heard
Source reference: p. 2, 52. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the same procedural relief granted in Ratnesh Kumar
Source reference: p. 3, 5–6Law Applied
An order affecting a person’s rights and carrying civil consequences should not be made without a fair opportunity of hearing.
Source reference: no citationThe affected person should be given notice, an opportunity to reply, and a reasoned decision addressing the contentions raised.
Source reference: no citationThe Court applied this principle as stated in the coordinate Bench decision in Ratnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 10638 of 2020, which set aside the impugned order for failure to follow that procedure and reserved liberty to the authorities to act in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner
Source reference: p. 4–5The judgment did not determine the petitioners’ substantive entitlement under the ACP or MACP Rules
Source reference: p. 2, 5–6Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners’ previously granted Second MACP benefits had been cancelled or shifted to later dates by the 19 February 2020 order
Source reference: p. 5Because that decision affected the petitioners and involved recovery, it carried civil consequences.
Source reference: no citationApplying the reasoning in Ratnesh Kumar, the Court concluded that the order could not stand without an opportunity for the petitioners to respond and without consideration of their contentions.
Source reference: p. 4–6The Court therefore granted the same procedural relief, without deciding the underlying merits of the petitioners’ MACP claims.
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside Memo No. 187 dated 19 February 2020 insofar as it related to the petitioners
It reserved liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after providing the petitioners a due opportunity of hearing.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Surendra Prasad SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
