PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification was issued by the respondent-State vide Annexure : A-2. The pay scales of Rs. 1500-2700 was revised to Rs. 5000-8100. In sequal to Annexure : A-2, the petitioners were also placed in the higher pay scales as is evident from Annexures : A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7. However, an amendment was carried out on vide Annexure : A-7 to the following effect:

(2.) Consequently, the office order dated 22nd November, 2001 was issued whereby the pay of the petitioners was reduced. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been heard at the time of issuance of Annexures : A-7 and A-9 respectively. The petitioners have suffered civil and evil consequences after the issuance of Annexure : A-7 and A-9. Since their pays were reduced, the petitioners ought to have been heard before the issuance of Annexures : A-7 and A-9. The petitioners have neither misled nor mis-represented the authorities at the time of issuance of Annexure A-2 on the basis of which higher pay scale was granted to them. There is violation of the principle of natural justice.

(3.) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2009 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer: