TARA CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing of office orders dated 13.5.2002, 20.5.2002 and 21.5.2002 with a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue their earlier promotion with all consequential benefits. THE petitioners have also prayed that they may be allowed protection of their pay as Junior Assistants under F.R. 27 or as a measure personal to them as has been done in several similar cases. THE further case of the petitioners is that they have challenged orders dated 13.5.2002, 20.5.2002 and 21.5.2002 whereby the promotion of the petitioners as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 ordered earlier vide office order dated 30.9.2000 has been withdrawn, cancelled wrongly, illegally, arbitrarily, unconstitutionally by ordering placement under 50 : 50 percent by respondent No.3 as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 which has reduced the pay of the petitioners by one increment all of a sudden without assigning any reason and without following the principle of natural justice or without calling for options from the petitioners.

(2.) THE petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply. It has been stated that petitioners were promoted to the post of Junior Assistants vide office order dated 30.9.2000 in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996, 4.8.1997, 5.11.1997, 1.4.1998, 23.9.1998 and 21.6.2000. THEreafter, their pay was fixed ' 4550/-, ' 4700/- and ' 4850/- per month. In the meantime, the promotion orders of the Junior Assistants were withdrawn and only placement in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 was allowed in accordance with the Finance Department Notification dated 31.5.2001 as a result of which the pay of the petitioners /Junior Assistants has been fixed at ' 4400/- and ' 4550/- per month w.e.f. promotional date. At the time of re-fixation the petitioners were drawing their pay on the basic pay of ' 5000/-, ' 5320/- and ' 5480/-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned action of the respondents has adversely affected the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners were earlier promoted as Junior Assistants and now they have been given the placement as Junior Assistants instead of promotion as Junior Assistant. The consequence of impugned action is that the pay of the petitioners has been reduced and petitioners will lose one increment. The impugned action of the respondents has civil consequences. The petitioners were not heard nor were they given any option before the impugned action was taken by the respondents. It has been submitted that due to impugned action the pay of the petitioners has been reduced from back date and no doubt the Government have waived off recoveries to some extent but still the recoveries have not been waived off altogether. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP(T) No. 9003 of 2008 dated 5.1.2010 titled Narain Singh and others vs. Commissioner-cum- Secretary(Revenue) and anr. He has submitted that the respondents have given the earlier benefit to the petitioners by promoting them as Junior Assistants. It is not a case where the petitioners mis-represented or played fraud for obtaining undue benefit from the respondents. The petitioners were given benefit by the respondents in their own wisdom. A right had accrued in favour of the petitioners due to earlier benefit given by the respondents. Such right could not have been taken away by the respondents without following the principles of natural justice and for the same reasons no recoveries can be made from the petitioners as a consequence of impugned action of the respondents.