MALI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgments of the courts below which are based on concurrent findings of fact and law.

(2.) THE short argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the appellant was given the benefit of service rendered by him in the Army from 1969 to 1972 vide order dated 2. 12. 1989 (Ex. P6) passed by the respondents. Then the salary of the plaintiff was fixed in accordance with this order and all other consequential benefits accrued to the plaintiff in terms of the said order. This order was withdrawn by the respondents vide order Ex. P10. Before order Ex. P10 was passed, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was entitled to be heard in accordance with the settled principles of nature justice and doctrine of audi alteram partem. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no occasion for hearing the appellant because the order, Ex. P10 was only correcting order as having been given to the appellant in furtherance to the order Ex. P. 6 which was passed on an erroneous interpretation. According to him, this error was corrected in accordance with the government instructions vide Ex. P. 10. He further submits that irrespective of any other grounds the appellant would not be entitled to seek the benefit of service rendered in Army from 1969 to 1972 in the Government Department as he was appointed on adhoc basis. According to the learned counsel in view of the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Chambel Singh v. Haryana State, (1995-1)109 P. L. R. 152 (F. B.), the appellant cannot claim any benefit.

(3.) IT is a well settled and recognised principle of law that the principles of natural justice are fully applicable to the service jurisprudence and all administrative orders which may be passed by the authorities in that regard. Not only this an order of the kind like Annexure P/10 has to be an order which is self-speaking and must indicate some reason and application of mind by the concerned authorities. Reference may be made to the case of Union of India v. E. G. Nambudiri, A. I. R. 1991 Supreme Court 1216.