CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5447 of 1994
PETITIONER:
BHAGWAN SHUKLA S/O SH. SARABJIT SHUKLA
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/1994
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND & FAIZAN UDDIN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
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. 1812-70 by an order dated 27.10.1970. The
basic pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs. 190 p.m. w.e.f. 18.12.1955 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.
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 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 1812.1970. 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 flagrant 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.
