TAKAR POYOM Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D. Pangging, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Order No. RWD/estt-13/03-04 dated 20th June, 2008 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the Chief Engineer, RWD, Itanagar whereby the corrigendum issued earlier on 30th March, 2005 in connection with the enhancement of the scale of pay of Bulldozer Mechanic has been cancelled. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Work Charged Bulldozer Mechanic under Rural Works Division at Along in the scale of pay of Rs. 380 -560/- plus other allowances as admissible with effect from the dates from their joining in the duties. Vide order dated 10th November, 1981 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioners joined their duties and had been continuing and rendering service as Work Charged Bulldozer Mechanic. Thereafter by an order dated 03. 03. 1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Executive Engineer (M), RW, MD, Itanagar, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised to Rs. 4000-6000/- as per Central Civil Service R. P. Rules, 1997 and accordingly, they have been drawing salary in the aforesaid pay scale. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed as Mechanic on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- vide Orders No. RWD/estt/13/2003-04 dated 5th April, 2004 and No. RWD/estt. 13/2003-04 dated 5th April, 2004 against the W/c posts created vide Govt. Order dated 16. 12. 2003. The petitioners accepted the said appointment but they raised a grievance before the respondent authorities that they are entitled to scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- p. m.

(3.) MR . Pangging, learned counsel for the petitioners made a very limited submission that this impugned order dated 20. 06. 2008 was issued reducing the pay scale of the petitioners fixed at Rs. 4000-6000/- p. m. to Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- p. m. without giving any prior notice and opportunity of hearing and as such, the same is not sustainable under the law and as such, the same is liable to be quashed inasmuch as the impugned order is visited with civil consequences and also in violation of the principle of natural justice. In support of his submission, he relies on Apex Court's decision rendered in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1994 SC 2480, wherein it is held that reduction in pay scale of employees without granting any opportunity to show cause amounts to flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice since such order is visited with civil consequences and also makes the employees suffer huge financial loss and such order passed is liable to be set aside. The principle laid down in the said case has been followed by this Court in Vankhuma Vs. State of Mizoram and Ors. , reported in 2004 (2) GLT 571.