Mahavir Singh and Yog Raj and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M. Srinivasan, C.J.—These two writ petitions have to be allowed on a very short ground that no opportunity was ever given to the Petitioners before their scales of pay were reduced.

The Petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1434 of 1996 was appointed on 27-12-1990 as a Constable/Cook. His scale of pay at that time Rs. 825-1,200, but the Respondents passed an order on 13-5-1991, which entitled itself as ''Corrigendum'', By that order the Petitioner''s scale was directed to be read as Rs. 950-1,400 with effect from 27-12-1990, on the date on which he was appointed. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner did not make any representation to change the scale of pay, which was originally fixed at Rs. 825-1,200. The Corrigendum was issued by the Authorities voluntarily on their own with effect from the date of appointment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was getting his pay according to that scale thereafter.

By office order dated 4-10-1995, the Respondents re-fixed the scale of pay of the Petitioner at Rs. 825-1,200 with effect from his initial appointment. By Anr. order, the Petitioner was directed to refund the amount paid to him in excess under the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1,400. The aggrieved Petitioner has come before this Court.

In C.W.P. No. 1750 of 1996, the Petitioners were enrolled as Constables/Cook. The first of them was appointed on 1-4-1982. The Petitioners No. (sic) and 5 were appointed on 24-1-1986 and 29-5-1982, respectively Petitioners No. 3, 4 and 6 were appointed on 21-2-1989, 10-7-1989 and 22-5-1989, respectively. In so far as Petitioners No. 3, 4 and 6 are concerned even at the time of appointment their scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 950-1,400. As regards Petitioners No. 2 and 5 their scale of pay at the time of appointment was Rs. 225-308. Similarly, with regard to Petitioner No. 1 though the earlier scale was Rs. 210-270, it was changed into Rs. 225-308 with effect from the date of his appointment. The pay scales of Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5 were changed after the 4th Pay Commission report to Rs. 950-1,400 with effect from 1-2-1986.

By an order dated 5-8-1996, the pay scale of the Petitioners were altered though the revised scale was not mentioned in that order. It was only stated in the order that at the time of initial appointment the pay scale was Rs. 980-1,400. It is further stated that the matter was taken with the Cabinet Secretariat to grant the Matric scale in favour of Constable/Cook, orderly, Barber, Dhobi and Sweeper, but it was not considered by the Cabinet Secretariat and decided vide their U.O. No. Coord/11/7(2)/526, dated 2-1-1996. It was ultimately stated that the necessary recoveries in regard to above subject be done earliest to avoid I.T.C. objection. It is not clear from the said order dated 5-8-1996 as to what exactly was decided by the Cabinet and what was the scale of pay, to which the Petitioners became entitled on account of that decision of the Cabinet and what would be the recovery from the Petitioners.

In this case also no opportunity was given to the Petitioner before the order dated 5-8-1996 was made. The main point in both the cases is the same but in C.W.P. No. 1750/96, the Petitioners are on stronger ground that their initial scale of pay was itself Rs. 950-1,400 and further the order dated 5-8-1996 does not even set out the revised scale or the amount to be recovered from them.

As it is now clear that none of the Petitioners was given any opportunity to make representation as to why their scale of pay should not be revised and it should continue to be Rs. 950-1,400. The impugned orders passed against these Petitioners are unsustainable. The principles of Natural Justice have been clearly violated in these cases.

The Supreme Court has in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, laid down that the Appellant therein was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law and, therefore, there was a flagrant violation of the principles of Natural Justice and the Appellant had to suffer huge financial loss without being heard.

That principle will apply in these cases and these Petitioners cannot be put to financial loss without any notice to them and without following any procedure known to law.

In such circumstances, the order dated 4-10-1995 passed against the Petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1434 of 1996 and the order dated 5-8-1990 passed against the Petitioners in C.W.P. No. 1750 of 1996, are quashed. If the Respondents want to reduce the scale of pay of the Petitioners, it is open to them to take appropriate proceedings and give sufficient opportunity to the Petitioners to make their representations before they take any action for reduction of the scales of pay. As the impugned orders are quashed, the Respondents ate bound to pay the difference in the salary payable to the Petitioners as per the scale Rs. 950-1,400.

With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.