Satish Prasad vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of WPSS No. 3751 of 2018 are being considered.

Petitioner served in a private unaided recognized institution, namely, Janta Junior High School Saraswati Vidhya Niketan, Soun, Anthwalgaon, District Tehri Garhwal. The said Institution was included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government vide Government Order dated 20.02.2014. Upon inclusion of the Institution in the grant-in-aid list, petitioner was absorbed against the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) and he was given pay band of Rs.9300-34800 (Grade Pay Rs.4600) and as per annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, his gross salary was fixed at Rs.58,600 as on 01.07.2016.

However, District Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal passed an order on 04.04.2018, directing the Management of the concerned Institution to submit the salary bill of the petitioner as per the rate at which salary was paid to him upto February, 2017. The said order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure No. CA-5 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, in support of his contention that petitioner's salary has been substantially reduced from Rs.58600 to Rs.44900.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reduction in salary entails civil and evil consequences to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner was required to be heard. He further submits that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him. He refers to para 21 to the writ petition, where this plea was specifically taken but the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, is absolutely silent on this aspect as to whether petitioner was heard or not.

Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned C.S.C., appearing for the State/respondents, submits that pay of the petitioner was to be fixed based on the Accounts/Audited Balance-Sheet submitted by the Committee of Management of the Institution to ensure that while benefit of pay protection is given to the petitioner but no extra financial burden is imposed upon public exchequer by fixing pay at a level higher than what he was getting earlier. He further submits that the District Education Officer had issued several letters to the Committee of Management to produce the Cash-Book, Balance-Sheet, Salary Pass-Book, Income Tax Return etc. of the concerned employee (teaching or non-teaching) to ascertain the exact amount which was being paid to him before inclusion of the Institution in the grant-in-aid list. He further submits that petitioner's pay was erroneously fixed at a higher level, in the absence of any material, therefore, the District Education Officer was justified in passing the impugned order, whereby he has directed the Committee of Management to claim salary of the petitioner, as per the salary payable to him upto February, 2017. He further submits that this is a case of correction of mistake and no hearing is needed.

Right to receive salary is property within Article 300-A of the Constitution, therefore, any interference with this valuable right has to be in accordance with law.

From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the order passed by District Education Officer has the affect of divesting the petitioner of his right to get higher amount as salary. According to the petitioner, this would result in recurring financial loss of more than Rs.10,000/- per month to him.

In such view of the matter, this Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was required to be heard, as the order impugned entails civil consequences to him. Since petitioner was not heard, therefore, the matter is interferable.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the District Education Officer concerned to issue fresh notice to the petitioners, within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petitioners shall submit their reply to the notice within three weeks thereafter. The District Education Officer shall thereafter examine the reply to be given by the petitioners and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within six weeks thereafter. For a period of twelve weeks or till decision is taken by the District Education Officer, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the impugned order(s) shall be kept in abeyance.

Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking on behalf of his client that copy of this order will be served upon the concerned District Education Officer within one week.

In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to supply copy of this order to the concerned District Education Officer within a week, he shall not be entitled to protection of this order.

Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.