NAND KISHORE PPATEL Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners have, by this petition, challenged the resolution of the respondent Shri Sharda Prabandhak Samiti dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure -P -1) by which the Committee has resolved to withdraw the pay -scale granted to the petitioners and directed that the gradation list of the employees be placed before the Committee in its next meeting. The first petitioner was appointed on 12.7.1993 on the post of Clerk on daily wages while the second petitioner was appointed on 1.1.1993.. They were continued on daily wages and later granted regular pay -scale by order dated 28.11.2000 (Annexure -P -10). However, the said pay scale was withdrawn by the impugned order Annexure -P -1 which the petitioners have challenged.

(2.) THE respondents 2 and 3 have filed return in which the respondents have pointed out that the two petitioners were at Serial No. 84 and 74 respectively, of the list of the clerks working on daily wages and since the cases of the persons senior to the petitioners had not been considered for grant of regular pay -scale and the regularisation/grant of regular pay -scale, had the effect of supersession of these persons by the two petitioners, the regular pay -scales granted to the petitioners were withdrawn. The respondents have also submitted that the petitioners shall be considered for grant of regular pay -scale when their turn comes after persons senior to the petitioners have been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if there was a mistake in granting the pay -scale/grade to the petitioner, the same could not have been rectified without a notice of hearing to the petitioners. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the effect of the impugned resolution was reduction in the basic pay of the petitioners, the order could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

(3.) IN the present case, it is not disputed that by order Annexure -P/10 the petitioners were granted a regular pay -scale and they started receiving their salary in the pay -scale so prescribed. It is also not disputed that before withdrawing the pay -scale granted to the petitioners no notice was given to the petitioners to show cause against the withdrawal thereof. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners have been subjected to financial loss without notice to them and without granting them an opportunity of hearing against the same. In the resolution passed by the committee, there is no direction for cancellation of the pay -scale granted to the two petitioners without notice and, therefore, giving of notice is not contra -indicated even in the resolution Annexure -P -1 passed by the committee. The cancellation of the pay scale without notice to the petitioners, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Since in the resolution there is only a direction to cancel the pay -scale granted to the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 and 3 can serve notice to the petitioners before any final decision is taken in the matter. Annexure -P/10 is set aside and it is directed that the authority concerned shall, before cancelling the pay -scale, give due notice to the petitioners and to hear the petitioners in the matter before taking any decision in this behalf. There shall be no order as to costs.