D. Kovendan and Others vs The Executive Officer, The Town Panchayat, Vettavalam

S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.—This petition is for quashing the order dated October 31, 1987 of the respondent.

The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board on January 20, 1983, November 9,

1981, October 9, 1984 and May 5, 1981 respectively. They were posted at Vettavalam Combined Water Supply Scheme. The petitioners

working in the Combined Water Supply Scheme were on the time scale. After the Vettavalam Combined Water Supply Scheme came to an end,

the scheme was handed over to the Vettavalam Town Panchayat with effect from October 9, 1984. At the time of handing over the scheme to the

Panchayat the petitioners were transferred to the service of the respondent. After the transfer the petitioners were paid the regular scale. When

Fourth Pay Commission report was published a new scale was introduced in 1987. The petitioners were given the new scale. In the service

registers necessary entries were also made with reference to the time scale as per the Fourth Pay Commission Report. The petitioners insisted the

respondent to pay arrears and due increments to them. Instead of complying with the request the impugned order has been passed. Hence the writ

petition :

The main contention urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that after they were handed over to the respondents they were given regular scale

of pay. That apart, when Fourth Pay Commission report was published and new scale was given, the benefit was also conferred on them. Only

when they wanted the respondent to pay the arrears, the impugned order has been issued without any notice or enquiry.

I find from the impugned order that there was no notice given to the petitioners before the cancellation of regular scale. It is simply stated that

action was taken pursuant to audit objection. Nothing prevented the respondent from putting the petitioners on notice and hearing them before

passing the impugned order.

Regular salary is a monetary benefit. Such a monetary benefit cannot be taken away from the petitioners without giving the man opportunity

whatever may be the reasons. In Bhagwan Shukla S/o. Sh. Sarabjit Shukla v. Union of India and others 1995 II LLJ 762, the Supreme Court has

categorically held that fairplay in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be

passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. The said observation has been made in respect of the

reduction of pay to an employee. The decision in the said case is applicable to the present case. Therefore, I am satisfied that the impugned order

cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 17291/87 is

dismissed.