KARTAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court making a grievance against the reduction of their pay and consequential recovery.

(2.) Without going into the merits of the controversy at this stage, it may be noticed that primary grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders of reduction of pay and consequential recovery had been passed on directions dated August 9, 2000 issued by the District Primary Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-5). It has been argued that the District Primary Education Officer was not the competent authority for ordering the reduction of pay and for re-fixing of their pay in the scale of Rs. 525/-. To support the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order dated April 29, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10443 of 2003 (Baldev Raj Anand and others v. State of Haryana and others), decided on April 29, 2004. On the basis of the aforesaid order, it has been contended that the similar order had been passed by the District Primary Education Officer on June 5, 2003 in Baldev Raj Anand's case and when a grievance was made by the aforesaid writ petitioners in this Court in the said petition, the State had taken a stand that the aforesaid directions will not be given effect to and fresh orders, if any, would be passed by the competent authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. Since the State had taken a stand in the aforesaid Baldev Raj Anand's case that the District Primary Education Officer was not the competent authority to pass such directions, as had been passed in the present case, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms and it is directed that the order for reduction of pay and the consequential recovery shall not be given effect to till such time the competent authority decides to pass a fresh order. It is made clear that if any such order is passed by the competent authority in future, then an opportunity of hearing to the persons affected would be given and the aforesaid orders would contain reasons in support of the decision.