RAJNEESH KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAITHLI Sharan, J. The short point involved in this writ petition relates to the alleged reduction of the pay-scale of the petitioner from 1400-40-1800-E. B.-50-2300 to 1200-30-1560-E. B. 40- 2040, vide order of the Director Economic and Statistical Directorate, U. P Lucknow dated 13th Oc tober, 1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ peti tion ).

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed Stenographer in the office of the Director, Economic and Statistical Directorate, U. P Lucknow. vide order No. 384/g-5/73, dated 22nd January, 1991 in the pay- scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-E. B.-50-2300 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition); he joined his duties. Afterwards, vide impugned order dated 13th October, 1995 issued by the Director, Economic and Statistical Directorate, U. P Lucknow, the above mentioned pay-scale of the petitioner was reduced to the payscale of Rs. 1200- 30-1560-E. B.-40-2040 and it was mentioned in that order that the Stenographers who assumed the charge of their posts on 1-1-1986 and after, would be given this reduced pay-scale.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through annexures filed in this case. Surprisingly enough, the letter of Secretary, Finance dated 8th October, 1991, Annexure-1 filed alongwith counter-affidavit of the opposite parties itself goes to indicate that the per sons who were drawing pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 per month would not be affected and they were given benefit of the said pay scale until they got promoted to the higher pay-scale. This by itself makes the position very clear that the Stenographers who had joined on higher payscale would not come under the clutches of the order of the Government reducing their pay-scale. It ap pears that the relevant order of the Govern ment in this regard has been wrongly inter preted by the Director, Economic and Statistical Directorate, U. P, Lucknow in coming to the conclusion that it would af fect those Stenographers also who had al ready joined on the higher pay scale. Thus, the impugned order (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) cannot stand in view of the letter of the Finance Secretary (Annexure-1 to the counter- affidavit ). Even otherwise, it does not stand to reason and it is also against all canons of natural justice, that the persons could be affected retrospectively by reduc ing their pay without giving any opportunity of being heard.