ROOP KRISHEN ZAROO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Draftman Grade IV against a permanent vacancy in the pay scale of 550 -750 by respondent No. 2 vide his order No. 544/1/Q dated 23 -2 -1975. The petitioner continued to work as a Draftsman and the entries to that effect were recorded in his Service Book The petitioner was contributing to G. P. Fund as well and in the year 1978, he was confirmed against the post of draftsman Grade IV in the pay scale of 550 -750 On 12 -9 -1981 the impugned order bearing No. f44/Emp/ivs/24 dated 12 -9 -1981 was issued vide which the petitioner was informed that his pay scale of 550 -750 had been objected to by the Army Headquarters and that the Army headquarters had directed that the actual pay for the post of Grade IV draftsman was 330 -560 and not 550 -750. He was, therefore, placed in the lower pay scale. The petitioner has questioned the impugned Order principally in the ground that before reducing his pay scale no notice was issued to him and that he was condemned unheard.

(2.) MR . Z. A. Shah learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences, fined the time scale in which the petitioner had been working for the last more than six years was suddenly reduced without "giving him any opportunity to show cause against it and without hearing him. Learned counsel has also argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction as the petitioner had been appointed against a permanent vacancy in the pay sc le of 550 -50 and he having accepted his appointment in that pay scale it was not open to the respondents to reduce the pay scale unilaterally and arbitrarily. According to Mr. Shah throughout the tenure of service of the petitioner, his pay scale come to be checked by different authorities at different stages and at different point, of time and till the impugned order came to be passed, no authority, not even the Audit Department had even objected to the placement of the petitioner in the pay scale of 550 -750. Learned counsel submits that since the pay of the petitioner has been reduced by the impugned order, it is in the nature of a penalty and without following the procedure established by law and the rules of natural justice, it is not open to the respondent to reduce his pay scale.

(3.) MR . M. L. Qazi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the pay scale of civilians in Defence Services are given out in C P R O 7/74 and that due to some mis -understanding of the said C P R O, the petitioner was appointed by the appointing authority in the pay scale of 550 -750 but that the actual pay scale of a draftsman of Grade IV is only 330 -560 and that when the Army Head Quarters realized this mistake and found that under rules the petitioner could only have been employed in the pay scale of 330 -560 and not in the pay scale of 550 -750, the impugned order was issued. Learned counsel concedes, on the basis of the reply affidavit, that no notice was issued to the petitioner before his pay scale was reduced, but he submits that since the pay scale was reduced in accordance with the rules, after the mistake was detected, no notice was required to be issued.