S V SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. D. A. Bambhania, learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Looking to the facts of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Mr. D. A. Bambhania filed reply to the writ petition today in the Court which has been taken on the record. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the writ petition, the Counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions, but I do not consider it necessary to advert to all those contentions except one which according to me is sufficient to allow this writ petition.

(3.) The prtitioner is a Sales Tax Inspector in the Department of Sales Tax of the Government of Gujarat. The Government of Gujarat had evolved a scheme of higher grade scale to deal with the problem of absence or restricated chances of promotion vide resolution dated 5-7-1991. In pursuance of the said scheme the petitioner was given the benefit of the higher paysale vide order dated 7-11-1992 with effect from 1987. The petitioner was given the arrears of fixation and he is getting the pay in the higher payscale continuously. Vide resoltuion dated 16-8-1994, the resolution dated 5-7-1991 was amended. A consequent resolution has been passed on 11-7-1995 by the State Government and the petitioner is granted higher payscale with effect from 1-6-1989 instead of 1-6-1987 as a result of which the recovery of the excess amount received by the petitioner during the period from 1-6-1987 to 1-6-1989 in the higher pay scale is sought to be made. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the resolutions dated 16-8-1994 and 11-12-1995. One of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that both the resolutions have been passed without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that under the resolution dated 16-8-1994 and 11-12-1995 his pay has been reduced for the period between 1-6-1987 to 1-6-1989. It is a case where the benefits which have been given to the petitioner of the higher payscale for the aforesaid period has been ordered to be taken back and further the recovery in serious monetary loss to the petitioner presently as well as in future also. Because of these two resolutions the petitioner's two grade increments are likely to be affected which will cause recurring losses in the pay as well as the further monetary loss in the amount to be paid to him on his retirement and the pension. Looking to the nature of the order and its results it was incumbent upon the respondent to comply with the principles of natural justice.