RAMESH CHAND Vs. SECRETARY FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing of office order dated 7.2.2004 and have also sought a direction to the respondents to allow continuity of earlier protection/pay fixation order issued on 13.7.2001. It has also been prayed that petitioners may be allowed the protection of their pay as a Senior Clerk under F.R. 27 or as a measure personal to them. THE further case of the petitioners is that the petition has been filed against office order dated 7.2.2004 whereby the protection of pay of the petitioners as Senior Clerk in the pay scale of ' 4400 7000 ordered earlier vide office order No. 59 dated 13.7.2001 has been superseded/withdrawn/cancelled wrongly, arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and re-fixation in the lower pay scale of ' 4020-6200 illegally by ordering whereas the pay of the petitioners was already fixed in the pay scale of ' 4400 7000 which has now been reduced by one to three increments all of a sudden without assigning any reason and also without following principles of natural justice and also without calling any option from the petitioners.

(2.) THE respondents have filed joint reply in which they have contested the claim of the petitioners and have submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi has rectified the wrong pay fixation of the petitioners vide order dated 7.2.2004 in pursuance of Government order dated 31.5.2001. THEre is nothing wrong, arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal by ordering re-fixation to rectify the omission. THE pay protection is given to the petitioners as measure personal to them and pay scale of ' 4400 7000 is not admissible to them. THE Government issued notification dated 31.5.2001 and bifurcated the cadre of Clerks in the ratio of 50 : 50 i.e. 50% Clerks in the pay scale of ' 3120-5160 (with initial start of ' 3220/-) and Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 7000. THE pay rules were amended vide notification dated 31.5.2001 and was to be implemented in letter and spirit and accordingly the wrong pay fixation has been rectified by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 7.2.2004. This is not a case that the pay has been reduced, but the pay has been re-fixed in accordance with rules. THE petitioners have filed rejoinder and reiterated their stand while denying the case projected by the respondents.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Division Bench judgment in Narain Singh's (supra) is more nearer to the facts of the present case. THE Division Bench in that case has held as follows:-