FRANCIS PHILIP Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 9.7.2005 cancelling the pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040 given to him vide order dated 6.3.1996 and also the consequential order dated 13.10.2006 for recovery of the excess amount of Rs.1,69,838/ - paid to him.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Helper on 21.1.1978 and came to be promoted as Auto Electrician with effect from 30.5.1985 and was placed in the pay scale of Rs.750 -940. It appears that by order dated 6.3.1996 at Annexure -D, the petitioner was given pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040 for the post of Electrician with effect from 1.1.1996.

(3.) LEARNED senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with learned advocate Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had completed more than 18 years of service as on the date of granting the pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040, the Executive Engineer had conferred the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040. Mr. Mehta submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, on completion of 10 years of service as daily wager, as on 1.10.1988, the petitioner had become entitled to the benefit of permanency and consequential benefits of regular pay scale. Mr. Mehta submitted that even the work -charge employees completing more than 10 years of service were paid pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040 and therefore, there was no illegality or mistake in giving the said pay scale to the petitioner in the year 1996. Mr. Mehta submitted that even as per the resolution dated 17.11.1988, which was based on the settlement between the parties, the petitioner on completion of more than 10 years of service and less than 15 years of service was to be considered as skilled labour and therefore, had become entitled to Rs.950 -1400 as per the said resolution. Mr. Mehta submitted that the petitioner had subsequently put in more than 8 years of service as on 1996, therefore, the petitioner was given pay scale of Rs.1200 -2040. Mr. Mehta submitted that even if the respondents were of the view that the said pay scale was given to the petitioner by mistake, the petitioner was required to be given notice with necessary documents and only after hearing the petitioner, the impugned action of cancellation of pay scale could have been passed by the respondents. Mr. Mehta pointed out from the impugned order that the petitioner was just called in the chamber by the concerned officer and the same was treated as hearing given to the petitioner. Mr. Mehta submitted that the petitioner had no chance to meet with the documents/resolutions referred by the respondents in the affidavit -in -reply and therefore, the impugned order could not be said to be meeting with the principles of natural justice. He thus urged to allow this petition.