TILAK CHANDRA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Mannan, learned CGC, who submits that he accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-Union of India and when he served the notice to the said respondents, they refused to accept the same and therefore, he has no other option but to withdraw himself from the case. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has served notice on the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by registered A.D. Office Note dated 23.11.2007 indicates that A.D. cards have been received back after causing service of notice upon respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In this view of the matter, with regard to the service of notice upon respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the same is considered duly served. No counter has also been filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondents.

(2.) Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-filing of affidavit-in-opposition by the respondents should not stand in the way of the petitioner for disposal of the instant writ petition. In support of her contention, she has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1993 SC 2592 in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court as reported in (2001) 3 GLT 262 in the case of Rejia Khatun Vs. State of Assam & Ors., which has followed the decision of the Apex Court rendered in AIR 1993 SC 2592, as referred above. Ms. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on a decision of the Apex Court as reported in (1997) 6 SCC 282 in the case of Bir Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. and also relied upon a decided case of the Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1997 (2) GLT 150 in the case of Dhairya Nath Kakati @ Dhairya Ram Kakati Vs. Union of India & Ors. In all the above cited cases, it is now well-settled law that as regard the non-filing of affidavit-in-opposition by the respondents, it has been held that the averments made in the writ petition are deemed to have been accepted by the respondents. In this view of the matter and in view of the law laid down by various decisions of the High Court as well as Apex Court, in the present case also, the respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition and therefore, the averments made in this writ petition are deemed to have been accepted.

(3.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner states that he is serving as Senior Telephone Operator in the O/o G. M., Telephone Department, Itanagar. In pursuance of the Government of India's Notification No. 1-71/83/NLG (Vol.-III) dated 20.11.1990, some of the Senior Telephone Operators of the Department who completed 16/10 years service in the basic cadre are entitled to the benefits of higher scale under the scheme of "One Time Bound Promotion" (in short, "O. T. B. P.") and the petitioner being eligible under the O. T. B. P. Scheme, vide Order No. 136/2003-04 dated 12.05.2003, issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Admn.), O/o G. M. T. D./BSNL/Arunachal Pradesh, was also placed in the higher scale of pay w.e.f. 01.04.1999. The pay-scale of the petitioner, thereafter, was fixed at Rs. 5000-150-8000/- w.e.f. 01.04.1999- 01.10.2000 vide Order No. E-37/2003-04/142 dated 19.05.2003 by the Senior Accounts Officer (Cash), O/o GMT, BSNL, Itanagar. In pursuance to the above said order, annual increments were also granted w.e.f. 01.04.2001 till April, 2006, based on which the pay-scale of the writ-petitioner was Rs. 8500/- p.m. and while he was availing such pay-scale, the increment due on 01.04.2007 could not be availed by him as he had taken medical leave for the month of February, 2007, due to severe illness. On the basis of the aforesaid fixation of pay, the petitioner continued to get his salary with all other allowances to the tune of Rs. 15,895/- p.m. till May, 2006. But, to the utter shock and surprise of the writ-petitioner, his salary for the month of June, 2006, has been reduced to Rs. 14,181/- p.m. without intimating any reason thereof and as a result of which, the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs. 8500/- p.m. to Rs. 7500/- p.m.. On receiving the reduced salary for the month of June, 2006, immediately on 14.06.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Chief Accounts Officer but no response has been made by the concerned authorities to that effect. Thereafter, on 31.01.2007 and 13.03.2007, the petitioner, once again, submitted representations, however, till date, the respondents have not cared to reply to the said representations. It is the further case of the petitioner that from the month of June, 2006, till date, i.e. for the last 14 months, the petitioner is being paid salaries at the reduced rate, as aforementioned, which is far less than his actual salaries per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the action of the respondents in deducting the long-drawn salaries of the petitioner in such a whimsical way, is most arbitrary and is in gross violation of the Rules of principles of natural justice. That apart, the respondents have not even bothered to intimate the reasons for such deductions not to speak of serving show-cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing before such a dramatic decision was taken by them. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that reduction of such salary amounts to reduction in the rank and status of the petitioner and as such, the respondents are liable to pay back to the instant writ-petitioner what they had deducted from his pay and salaries.