Vimal Chand Vashistha vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.—These 5 writs petitions involving identical controversy are being decided this common order, however, the facts illustratively are taken from S.B.C.W.P. No. 8125/2012-Vimal Chand Vashistha Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioners who are working in the project under the respondent No. 2, Project Director, State Project Management Unit-M POWER (Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan), Jodhpur, being aggrieved by the order (Annex. 14) dated 06.07.2012, have preferred the present writ petition. By the impugned order dated 06.07.2012 (Annex. 14), their pay fixation was revised in pursuance of some enquiry report of the Accounts Officer, Jodhpur dated 02.07.2012 and it was stated that since the petitioners deputation in these projects was for more than the period of four years, they would not be entitled to grant of pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200, but would be entitled to pay scale of their parent Department.

The respondents have filed the reply to writ petition and along-with which have produced the Enquiry Report (Annex. R/2) dated 21.05.2012 given by Accounts Officer, M-POWER, Jodhpur.

The only grievance raised in the present writ petition is that before revising the pay scale and making the pay fixation on the basis of said report of the Accounts Officer, dated 21.05.2012 (Annex. R/2) or the report dated 02.07.2012, referred to in the impugned order (Annex. 14) dated 06.07.2012, the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing and the said pay fixation of the petitioners has adversely affected them.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, justified the impugned order and urged that it was so passed after examining the case of each and every petitioners in detail.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that any administrative order, which results in civil consequence, having financial implications, could not be passed by the respondents within giving the opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved incumbent/s and, therefore, the impugned order (Annex. 14) dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Project Director, deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The respondents however will be free to supply copy of the said enquiry report or report of the Accounts Officer to the petitioners, and seek their explanation and representation before passing appropriate speaking orders, after providing opportunity of personal hearing, the appropriate orders can still be passed.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of and setting aside the impugned order (Annex. 14) dated 06.07.2012, the respondent No. 2-Project Director, State Project Management Unit-M POWER (Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan), Jodhpur, is directed to pass fresh appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. Since, the report is now available to the petitioners by way of reply filed to the writ petition by the respondents, the petitioners are directed to file their representations straightway within a period of fifteen days from today, and the said respondent No. 2 is expected to pass fresh orders within a period of two months from today after giving them opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners in the first instance may appears before the respondent No. 2 on 19.06.2014.

With these observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.