A R PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is holding the post of Superintendent of Maps in the office of Respondent No. 2 has filed this writ petition before this Court praying for issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the payscale of Rs. 650-1200 as prescribed under the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975 with further consequential reliefs.

(2.) A prayer for grant of interim relief has also been made. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are briefly stated. The respondent created isolated post of Superintendent of Maps under the order dated 27.11.1980, in the payscale of Rs. 650-1200. The petitioner was appointed on this post and he was allowed to draw the pay in the payscale of Rs. 650-1200.

(3.) The respondent-Government vide its order dated 10.2.1982 had amended its earlier dated 27.11.1980 and accordingly the pay of the post of Superintendent of Maps was brought down to Rs. 500-900 from Rs. 650-1200. A copy of this order has been annexed at Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Superintendent of Maps were framed after this change has been brought. These Recruitment Rules have been published in the Government Gazette of Gujarat dated, 6.10.1982. The post of the Superintendent of Maps has been provided to be filled in by promotion and by direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1. The criteria for the promotion is on the basis of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons working in the cadre of Head Draftsman in the Geology and Mining Department and who possesses the qualification specified in Rule 4 (b) and who have put in about three years service in the cadre. In pursuance of the order of the Government dated 10.2.1982 the pay of the petitioner was accordingly fixed in the payscale of Rs. 500-900 which has resulted into heavy loss to the petitioner and he has been stagnated at Rs. 900/- i.e. the maximum of the reduced payscale. The petitioner being aggrived by the decision of the Government dated 10.2.1982 as well as the order passed in compliance thereof by the Director of the Department dated 4.3.1982 made a representation but his grievances were not redressed. One of the important points raised in the representation is that the payscale of the post of Head Draftsman from which the channel of promotion has been provided to the post of Superintendent of Maps, under the Revised Payscale Rules, 1975, it's payscale is prescribed to be Rs. 500-900 and though the post of the Superintendent of Maps is higher in status its the payscale remains to be the same as that of a feeder cadre post. It has been contended in the representation that the order dated 27.11.1980 was given effect to and the petitioner has been given the payscale of Rs. 650-1200 but that benefit has been taken later on without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing. This action of the respondent results into civil consequences and as such before passing any order adversely affecting the pay of the petitioner the principle of natural justice has to be followed or should be complied with. When the petitioner could not get any relief from the Government he approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The writ petition has come up for admission before this Court on 18.8.1983 on which date Rule was issued and notice for interim relief has also been isssued. The matter for grant of interim relief had come up for consideration before this court on 14.9.1983 and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, the interim relief has been granted in the term that he shall be placed in the payscale of Rs. 650-1040, from the date of his filing an undertaking to the extent that in case if he fails in the petition he has to return the benefit received under the interim order. The petitioner filed the undertaking in accordance with the direction as contended in the order of interim relief and there is no dispute that thereafter his pay has been fixed in the payscale of Rs. 650-1040. The respondents have not chosen to file any reply to the writ petition and as such the averments made in the writ petition stands uncontroverted. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised many contentions challenging the orders of the respondent dated 10.2.1982 and 4.3.1982 but as the writ petition deserves to be accepted only on the ground of the violation of principles of natural justice, I do not consider it necessary to advert to all those contentions in the judgment. The petitioner was given promotion in the payscale of Rs. 650-1200 on the post of Superintendent of Maps. Under the order dated 27.11.1980 of the respondent Government, the payscale of the post fixed to be Rs. 650-1200. It is not in dispute that the channel of promotion to this post is provided from the post of Head Draftsman and the petitioner was given promotion on the post in the payscale of Rs. 650-1200. By the order dated 4.3.1982 the payscale of the Post of Superintendent of Maps has been brought down to Rs. 500-900, which has resulted into lower downing the payscale and consequential loss to the petitioner in the pay which he was getting on promotion and because of lower downing of the scale the pay of the petitioner has been stagnated at Rs. 900/-. To reduce the payscale and the consequence of which results in stagnation of the petitioner as well as to reduce the pay which he was getting are certainly a serious civil consequences and if any such order is passed it is incumbent upon the authority who passed this order to observe the principles of natural justice. It is not the case of the respondent that the orders dated 10.2.1982 and 24.3.1982 are passed after notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that both the orders dated 10.2.1982 and 4.3.1982 are the administrative orders. Though these are administrative orders but here these orders affect the right of the petitioner and as such principles of natural justice has to be complied with. It is true that the only exception is that the legislative action is not subject to the natural justice and as stated earlier the action taken in the present case is not the legislative action. When it is admittedly not a legislative action and orders passed in the present case affects the pay of the petitioner the respondent failed to give out any justification in the present case why they have not complied the principles of natural justice. It is well settled law that where an administrative order affects the right, of the citizens the natural justice has to be complied with. A reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Scheduled Castes and Weaker Section Welfare Association (Regd.) and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (AIR 1991 SC Pg. 1117) and in the case of the Govt. of Mysore vs. J.V. Bhatt, (AIR 1975 SC Pg. 596). I find sufficent merits in the contention of the petitioner that the orders dated 10.2.1982 and 4.3.1982 are arbitrary, as they have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.