LAKSHMAN DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year, 1972 and he retired on 30th of June, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that increment was given in the year 1981 and, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, though last pay scale was received higher, but, it has been reduced by thoroughly a non-speaking and ex-parte order, which is at Annexure-2 dated 15th of Sept., 2007, passed by respondent no. 4 and consequently, petitioner is under apprehension that his pension will also reduce on the basis of the reduced pay scale. It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no power or jurisdiction or authority to reduce the pay scale without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. No civil or criminal enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Petitioner retired in the year, 2007 and increment given in the year, 1981 is withdrawn by the respondents in the year, 2007 and therefore, if a direction is given to the respondents to give a notice to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the order may be passed and that too looking to the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Padmalochan Kalindi & Another as reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 451(Full Bench) as well as decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others as reported in 2009(3) SCC 475 and a decision rendered by this Court dated 22nd May, 2009 in WP(S) No. 145 of 2008. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner of being heard, all these judgments as well as provision of Rule 202 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 would have been brought to the notice of the respondents.

(2.) I have heard, learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that petitioner was wrongly given increment in the year, 1981 and therefore, a decision was taken in the year, 1994 to withdraw the increment and its effect has given in the year, 2007, after retirement of the present petitioner. Petitioner cannot retain the benefit, which was wrongly given to him and therefore, order at Annexure-2 has been passed by respondent no. 4.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the action taken by the respondent no. 4 whereby, the pay scale of the present petitioner has been reduced mainly for the reason that no notice was given to the petitioner, no hearing was given to the petitioner and an increment given in the year 1981 has been withdrawn in Sept., 2007 and that too unilaterally and without following the principles of natural justice. Respondent no. 4 has not given any notice and has abruptly arrived at the conclusion that the total emolument of the present petitioner is Rs. 6,950.00 per month, which is absolutely an arbitrary action. No reason has been given in the order at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. Thus, thoroughly a nonspeaking order has been passed. Petitioner is also apprehending deduction in the pension.