H.C. Rajalakshmi vs Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Chickmagalur and Others

Balakrishna, J.-On 1-5-1982, vide Annexure-B, respondents issued a memo regarding sanction of two advance increments to the petitioner in W.P. No. 3722/83. According to the memo, in conformity with the provisions contained in Government Order dated 24-5-1977, the petitioner was sanctioned two advance increments for having passed B.A. degree examination before 1-10-1979 fixing her pay as indicated in the said memo. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3723/83 also was accorded the same sanction by memo dated 7-4-1982. Both the petitioners are drawing the two advance increments for having passed degree examination before 1-10-1979. But on 21-12-1982 under Annexure-E, respondent-1 issued a memo informing the petitioners that the sanction of two advance increments to them is withdrawn since the petitioners who acquired graduation on or after 1-10-1979 are not eligible for the increments, on account of the instructions issued by the Director of Public Instruction (SE), Bangalore, dated 17-11-1982. Respondents was instructed to recover the amount from the petitioners immediately and to remit the same under the head of account. It is this memo of withdrawal which is questioned in these writ petitions.

The point to be considered iswhether the impugned memo Annexure-E deserves to be quashed for any legal infirmity.

The order sanctioning two advance increments to the petitioners were passed on 1-5-1982 and 7-4-1982 respectively. The petitioners who are the benefactors received the amounts according to the orders passed by the concerned authorities. After having sanctioned the increments and after having allowed the petitioners to draw the amount, subsequently based on a circular dated 17-11-1982, respondent-1 sought to recover the same from the petitioners by memo dated 21-12-1982. From the memo dated 21-12-1982, it is seen that a decision has been taken unilaterally without an opportunity of hearing or without an opportunity to represent their case by the petitioners. Benefits which are conferred by the Government, even if permissible on account of subsequent change of policy, is permissible for the purpose of reversal since the principle of legitimate expectation operates by virtue of the erstwhile policy of the Government. Before the policy is sought to be reversed after benefits have passed into the hands of the petitioners by virtue of the earlier Government Order, fairness and reasonableness require that the petitioners should be consulted in the sense that they should have an opportunity to make a representation against the withdrawal of the benefits already conferred on them. The expectation arose in the petitioners, may be, on account of an existing policy or a past practise or a conduct so parent which led the petitioners to honestly believe that they would be entitled to the benefit.

In the light of the above discussion, the policy making process itself is rendered dubious and the petitioners are justified in questioning the deprivation caused by a subsequent change in policy. The action taken by respondent-1 under Annexure-E cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo under Annexure-E is quashed.

Writ petition allowed.