J H PAWSA Vs. MARA AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with four others were initially appointed as Computer Operator on Muster Roll on fixed pay by an order dated 23rd March, 2001. Thereafter, by another order dated 06-01-2005, the petitioner along with four others were regularized as Data Operators with effect from 01-01-2005. By another order dated 01-02-2007, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Heard Operator in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000- 8000/- p.m with effect from 10-01-2007. While the petitioner was serving in the promoted post of Head Operator, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had issued another Notification dated 31-08-2007 degrading forthwith the service of the Group A, B and C Officers in the Annexure appended to the said notification. In the said annexure, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 1. Therefore, the petitioner made representations against the degradation of his post. However, having received no positive response from the respondents, the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the respondent No. 3.

(3.) Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner was regularized as Data Operator, he was promoted to the post of Head Operator on 01-02-2007 and the respondents without issuing any show cause notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice had issued the impugned Notification dated 31-08-2007 by which he was degraded back to the post of Data Operator basing on the direction of the Government of Mizoram letter dated 26-07-2007 and 10-08-2007. The said notification further stated that the service of the petitioner was degraded as the service was upgraded after cut-off-date i.e. 28-11-2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had made representations, however the same was not considered and therefore the petitioner made another representation on 26-08-2009 highlighting the facts and circumstances of the case as well as indicating to the respondents that out of the four persons who were degraded by the impugned Notification dated 31-08-2007, two persons has been restored back to their posts. As no reply was forth coming, another representation dated 14-09-2010 was made by the petitioner to the concerned authority which was followed by another representation dated 24- 06-2011.