Bhagwan Shukla S/o Sh. Sarabjit Shukla Vs. Union of India and others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5447 of 1994
Petitioner: Bhagwan Shukla S/o Sh. Sarabjit Shukla
Respondent: Union of India and others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5447 of 1994
Judges: A.S. ANAND & FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 08, 1994
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Reduction in Pay
Reduction in pay of employee without his being given opportunity of being heard – Violation of principle of natural justice – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal set aside.
Held:
The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He 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. There, has, thus, been a fagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play 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. (Para 3)
The Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER.
1. Leave granted.
2. The controversy in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant who had joined the Railways as a Trains Clerk w.e.f. 18.12.1955 was promoted as Guard, Grade-C w.e.f. 18.12.1970 by an order dated 27.10.1970. The basic pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs.190/- p.m. w.e.f. 18.12.1970 in a running pay-scale. By an order dated 25th July, 1991, the pay-scale of the appellant, was sought to be refixed and during the refixation his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 181/-p.m. from Rs. 190/- p.m. w.e.f.18.12.1970. The appellant questioned the order reducing his basic pay with retrospective effect from 18.12.1970 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The justification furnished by the respondents for reducing the basic pay was that the same had been ‘wrongly’ fixed initially and that the position had continued due to “administrative lapses” for about twenty years, when it was decided to rectify the mistake. The petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.9.1993.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs.190/- p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181/- p.m. from Rs. 190/- p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f.18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He 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. There, has, thus, been a fagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play 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. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs.190/- to Rs.181/- w.e.f. 18.12.1970.
4. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The controversy in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant who had joined the Railways as a Trains Clerk w.e.f. 18.12.1955 was promoted as Guard, Grade-C w.e.f. 18.12.1970 by an order dated 27.10.1970. The basic pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs.190/- p.m. w.e.f. 18.12.1970 in a running pay-scale. By an order dated 25th July, 1991, the pay-scale of the appellant, was sought to be refixed and during the refixation his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 181/-p.m. from Rs. 190/- p.m. w.e.f.18.12.1970. The appellant questioned the order reducing his basic pay with retrospective effect from 18.12.1970 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The justification furnished by the respondents for reducing the basic pay was that the same had been ‘wrongly’ fixed initially and that the position had continued due to “administrative lapses” for about twenty years, when it was decided to rectify the mistake. The petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.9.1993.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs.190/- p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181/- p.m. from Rs. 190/- p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f.18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He 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. There, has, thus, been a fagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play 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. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs.190/- to Rs.181/- w.e.f. 18.12.1970.
4. No costs.
