Har Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned letter no. 2002/16 G.E. dated 28.08.2021 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), issued by Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Nainital, District Nainital.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refix and release the post retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner i.e. Gratuity, Pension and other post retiral benefits on the basis of last payment certificate or salary drawn by the petitioner at the time of his date of superannuation.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent department to award statutory interest, as payable under section 7(3) (A) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972.

(iv) Issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) To Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioner that he worked with the respondent Public Works Department since 1984. He retired from service on 31.10.2020. After retirement, some of the post retiral dues were paid, but ten months after the retirement of the petitioner, by an order dated 28.08.2021, his salary was refixed without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner has bee refixed and reduced ten months after his retirement, without affording an opportunity of hearing, which is bad in the eyes of law. He refers to the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1862 (S/S) of 2003, Bhagirath Joshi and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others.

In fact, in the case of Bhagirath Joshi (supra), reduction of salary without affording an opportunity of hearing was quashed on the that ground alone and this order passed in the writ petition was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 181 of 2006, State of Uttaranchal & others v. Bhagirath Joshi & others. It is submitted that, in fact, the SLP (Civil) CC 8529 of 2010, against the judgments passed in Special Appeal No. 181 of 2006 has also been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while quashing the impugned order, the respondent authority may be directed to reconsider the issue after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity of hearing, as the personal opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. He submits that within four weeks, the matter may be decided afresh.

The impugned order refixing the salary of the petitioner has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it is set aside. The respondents shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order, which shall be duly communicated to the petitioner as well. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.