RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on 26.2.72 as a work Agent and vide order dated 14.8.76. He was declared as semi -permanent Road Mistry w.e.f. 1.12.1974 treating him to be working on the post regularly from 1.12.1972 and he was fixed in the pay -scale of Rs. 100 -180 vide copy of order dated 14.8.76 (Annex. 1). In the order Annex. 1, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is declared as semi -permanent from 1.12.74 and his pay is fixed as Rs. 100/ - per month in the scale of Rs. 100 -180. Initially in Annex. 1, at the place wherever 100 has been written word 70 was written, but after scoring the same word 100 has been mentioned and each cutting is initialed by the officer who had passed the order. He was also paid arrears of pay from 1.4.76 in the scale of Rs. 100. -180. It is stated by the petitioner that he was given grade of Rs. 100 -180 because of the reason that he was Hr. Secondary passed and also discharging the duties of Civil Mistry which is a post higher than the Road Mistry. He was allowed due yearly increments but all of sudden, without issuing any show cause notice vide order dated 11.9.81 (Annex. 2) the A. En. has refixed the pay by reducing the pay from Rs. 100 -180 to Rs. 70 -110 w.e.f. 1.4.76 in the. scale of Road Mistry and further order was made for recovery of amount with the monthly instalment of Rs. 90/ - per month. Being aggrieved with the order Annex. 2, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dated 13.10.1981 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner before Tribunal was identical as in the present writ petition i.e. that he had never worked as Road Mistry, but he was working as Civil mistry through -out and the Grade of Civil Mistry was Rs. 100 -180,. therefore, he was rightly fixed in the scale vide order Annex. 1. The Tribunal had non -suited the petitioner on an unimaginative ground without looking to the original or photo stat copy of Annex. 1 by saying that the word 'Road', had been cut or crossed by the petitioner and it has been substituted by words 'civil' by the petitioner and, therefore the petitioner has tampered with the copy of order just to mislead the Tribunal. On the photo -stat copy produced by the petitioner in the Court attached with the writ petition, there is no such cutting. The word Road has not been cut at all rather it is clearly mentioned as 'Road Mistry'. However it is admitted that the Grade of Civil Mistry is Rs. 100 -180. There is definitely cutting so far as mentioning of grades are concerned. Rs. 70/ -has been cut and Rs. 100 has been written. Similarly 110 has been cut and 180 has been written. Wherever it accrues in Annex. 1. But all these cutting are again initialed by same person. If that was so the Tribunal could not have jumped to the conclusion that these cutting have been made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. As all the cuttings are initialled a proper opportunity ought to have been given incase the Tribunal so desired to find out the author of Annex. 1 and author of person who has put the initial on cutting. No such thing has been done by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has straight way jumped to the conclusion that this cutting must have been done by the petitioner. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is only based on conjectures and surmises and cannot be upheld. The Tribunal has not gone into the other aspect of the matter i.e. whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner for passing the order for recovery or changing the grade of petitioner by reducing the same vide Annex. 2.

(2.) IN similar circumstances, in the case relating to one Om prakash, who was junior to the petitioner and was similarly declared semi -permanent 'Road Inspector' much later than the petitioner and was similarly placed in the grade of Rs. 100 -180 vide Annex. 6, which document also contained cutting similar to that of petitioner and whose pay was also reduced in the similar manner as to that of the petitioner. The order of recovery was passed vide Annex. 7. Photo state copy of appointment order of Om Prakash as semi -permanent bearing the cutting is attached as Annex. 6 with the writ petition (those documents were not part of the record of Tribunal and has beer placed for the first time.

(3.) IT is well settled law that no order effecting the Civil rights of a person can be passed without giving an opportunity to the official. The principles of natural justice are the cardinal principles which are to be complied with by the State Authorities even to modify an order howsoever erroneous or illegal, that order might be, if that order had bestowed any benefit on the official. In the present case, the petitioner had been issued letter Annex. 1 showing the grade to be 100 -180 by scoring the scale of Rs. 70 -110 and this scoring was duly initialled by the competent authority, who had passed the order and had some opportunity been given to the petitioner to show cause, the petitioner would have been able to convince the authorities of his entitlement in such grade in the year 1976 on the grounds which might be available to him relying on his qualifications and working on the seat of Civil Mistry. He could have explained property if some opportunity had been given to him to prove that the grade given to him was not given by way of any mistake but was given to him because of the reason that he deserved it. This finds support from the case of another person i.e. respondent No. 3. who though much junior had been given equal benefits of grade as was given to the petitioner. In both the cases the respondents had withdrawn the scale and refixed them in the reduced scale of Rs. 70 -110, but for the reasons not known, respondent No. 3 was again restored the grade. It a junior person in the same cadre has been given benefit by which he steals march on the senior, the senior is automatically entitled to it in the interest of justice. I am allowing the petitioner to argue on the pleadings of awarding, withdrawing and again restoring the scale to respondent No. 3 in similar circumstances as he had been made party and proper pleadings have been filed in the court and respondents have opportunity to rebut the same.