RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was no appearance on behalf of Union of India. I had required Mr. Madan Lokur, Standing Counsel for the Union of India, to make arrangement for arguments and Mr. Ashish Wad, Advocate, has appeared on his behalf to argue the matter.

(2.) This second appeal involves a very short point. It appears that the appellant, who was working with the Railways, was given promotions from one grade to another at different times and his salary came to be fixed at Rs. 290.00 per month in a particular scale of pay in Grade-V vide letter dated Dec. 10, 1969, with effect from Jan. 26, 1970. The authorities found that the salary ought to have been fixed at that particular scale and after refixing the salary at Rs. 280.00 the order was passed for recovering the excess amount paid on the basis of the wrong fixation of salary.

(3.) The grievance of the appellant, in brief, is that his salary should not have been re-fixed at Rs. 280.00 per month without giving him a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing as it adversely affected his right. It is admitted case that no such show-cause notice was given. However, the learned Additional District Judge while deciding the appeal had held that for correcting clerical mistakes in fixation of salary there is no need to give any show-cause notice. I think that this expression of view is quite in consonance with law. After all for every order which is to be made by the authorities, show-cause notice is not a must. Rules of natural justice cannot be stretched to that extent that even for correcting typographical mistakes in the order passed on administrative side a show-cause notice must be given to the employee affected by such an order. One would understand if the pay has been wrongly fixed by the authorities and remedy is sought by the employee in that connection but he cannot, on the mere ground that no show-cause notice was given, get his fixation of salary reversed by the court of law. Two judgments were cited before me. They were distinguished by the learned Additional District Judge because they pertain to different facts.