B.T. Eshwarappa vs The Mysore Paper Mills Limited

A.S. Bopannam, J.—The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ to quash the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 which is impugned at Annexure-K.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.

The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ. petition in the manner done here below is alone noticed at this juncture.

The Petitioner was working in the Respondent/The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd in CT-1 grade in the finishing department of the paper mills. Subsequently when he was to be appointed in the sugar mills which is a different unit as Weigh-bridge Assistant in Grade MS-4 the Petitioner opted for the same pursuant to which the interview notice dated 20.04.2006 which is at Annexure-A was issued. While opting to appear for the interview and take the appointment in MS-4 Grade in the sugar mills, the Petitioner had sought for protection of pay which he was drawing as CT-1 Grade in the finishing department. Subsequent to such appointment, the pay of the Petitioner was fixed as per the official memorandum dated 20.06.2006 which is at Annexure-C to the petition. The said fixation would indicate that the basic pay was fixed at Rs. 5,900/-. Immediately thereafter the Respondents have issued the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 within a span of about four months indicating that the official memorandum which was issued on 20.06.2006 stands modified and the pay of the Petitioner is re-fixed and the basic pay was indicated as Rs. 5,095/-. The Petitioner therefore claims to be aggrieved inasmuch as the pay fixation as per official memorandum dated 20.06.2006 was at Rs. 5,900/- while the re-fixation is at Rs. 5,095/-.

The case of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid fixation is erroneous and in any event, while re-fixing, the Petitioner has not been heard in the matter and as such the impugned official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 smacks of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. In this regard, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 2430 Even on merits, it is contended that as per the document at Annexure-R5 which is the pay slip for the CT-1 Grade prior to his change over to MS-4, the basic pay has been indicated at a higher rate than what has been now refixed and therefore the same is not sustainable. Reference is also made to certain other employees.

The Respondents have filed their detailed objection statement attempting to justify their action wherein it is contended that insofar as the payment to the CT-1 grade, the same was also covered under a settlement whereunder in addition to the basic pay fixed, the employees therein were also entitled to certain incentives and therefore on adding the amount of such incentive, the figure that is arrived cannot be considered as basic in CT-1 grade. The learned Counsel also strenuously contended on this aspect of the matter to justify their action to indicate that the re-fixation made is justified. The Petitioner however contested the same by referring to the reply statement wherein the said aspect as contended in the objection statement was refuted by the Petitioner.

Though having heard the learned Counsel on the said rival contentions advanced, the fact that the impugned official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 is issued without hearing the Petitioner is not in doubt and that fact of the matter has not been denied in the objection statement. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as noticed above would apply and in such circumstance, the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 would not be sustainable. Though that is the position, learned Counsel for the Respondent sought to contend that since objection statement had been filed and the manner of refutation has been explained in the objection statement, the same could be decided by this Court. Despite such contention being advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the position of law as enunciated in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, as rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court would indicate that any order which is passed to the detriment of a person should indicate the reasons therein and the same cannot be substituted subsequently by way of affidavits or objection statement.

Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, the perusal of the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 would indicate that no reasons are assigned and further no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner. That apart, considering the fact that the applicability of the pay scales to the different cadres and that too, with regard to the application of the same when a person changes over from CT-1 grade in the finishing department of the paper mills to that of a weigh bridge Assistant in the sugar mills is to be considered, the same would involve determination of certain factual aspects. It can only be effectively considered, if opportunity is granted to the Petitioner to putforth his case before the Respondent. Therefore, considering these aspects of the matter, without adverting to the correctness or otherwise of the fixation of the basic pay at the first instance by way of official memorandum dated 20.06.2006 or the re-fixation as done by the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006, the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 is liable to be quashed solely on the ground that the same has been done without opportunity to the Petitioner. With regard to the manner of fixation, ail contentions of the parties are left open.

Accordingly, the official memorandum dated 10.10.2006 stands quashed. The matter is remitted to the Respondent. It is open to the Respondent to issue an appropriate notice to the Petitioner with regard to modification as against the pay fixation by official memorandum dated 20.06.2006, hear the Petitioner in that regard and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.