BALRAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

(2.) It is not disputed before us that the order of reversion dated 02.06.1998 has been passed without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had been duly selected and appointed as T-II-3 (Field/Farm Technician) on 30.10.1991. After the petitioner had worked for six years, the respondents have passed order dated 02.06.1998 reverting him to the post of T-1 (Field/Farm Technician). It is also not disputed that the emoluments admissible on the post of T-1 are less than the emoluments of the post of T-II and T-III. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order could not have been passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. The petitioner has also raised a number of the pleas with regard to the discrimination. He has attached a list of employees at Annexure P-4. This annexure enumerates a number of persons, who according to the petitioner, possess identical qualifications to the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner was duly qualified at the time he was selected. The diploma possessed by the petitioner was recognised qualification which was subsequently de-recognised. It is submitted that all the pleas now taken were brought to the notice of the respondents. However, no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 739-HR of 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, has dismissed the O.A. erroneously on the basis that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. The C.A.T. also totally ignored the submission that the order dated 02.06.1998 was liable to be quashed on the ground that it had been passed in breach of rules of natural justice.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.