PARKASH CHAND Vs. F C CUM SECRETARY FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this petition have prayed for quashing of office order dated 28.1.2002 and office order dated 1.2.2003. It has also been prayed that respondents may be directed to allow continuity of earlier pay fixation issued on 17.6.1999 and 13.7.1999 with consequential benefits. THE petitioners have also prayed protection of their pay as Junior Assistants under F.R. 27 or as a measure personal to them. THE further case of the petitioners is that they had filed petition against pay fixation order dated 28.1.2002 and order dated 1.2.2003 whereby the promotion/pay fixation of the petitioners as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 ordered earlier vide office order dated 17.6.1999 and order dated 13.7.1999 have been withdrawn/cancelled wrongly, arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and illegally by ordering revised pay scale in lower stage in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 by placement instead of promotion which has reduced the pay by two increments all of a sudden without assigning any reason. THE petitioners were not given any show cause notice nor their options were called, hence the change/cancellation of earlier pay fixation is wrong, illegal.

(2.) THE respondents have contested the petition by filing the reply. It has been stated that notification dated 20.1.1998, 1.9.1998 and 31.5.2001 were issued by the Finance (Pay Regulation) Department to the Govt. of H.P. under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has also been stated that the Department/office has only complied with the rules/orders. THE petitioners have prayed relief for quashing above orders/rules of the Finance Department dated 28.1.2002 and 1.2.2003 which is improper. In fact the said office orders have been issued under the provisions laid down by Finance Department in its notifications dated 31.5.2001 and 3.11.2001. THE petitioners have never requested for withdrawal of these notifications. So the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 taken vide notification dated 31.5.2001 is legal and the petition is not maintainable. THE Government of H.P. was right in carrying out amendment in the Pay Revision Rules. THE amendment had effected the category of Junior Assistants who were allowed the benefit of F.R. 22, 1 (a) (i) as their promotion as Junior Assistant as per Pay Revision Rules, 1998 was notified on 1.9.1998. THE Government was alive to this issue and accordingly Government had decided to waive off the recoveries as per notification dated 3.11.2001. THE reduction of pay of the petitioners is not arbitrary and illegal. THE provision of F.R. 27 in this case is not applicable. THE orders of re-fixation of pay issued on 28.1.2002 and 1.2.2003 are legal.

(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:-