Allahabad High Court
Rajvir Singh And 14 Ors. vs State Of Up Thr Prin.Secy.Krishi ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 24
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 18657 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajvir Singh And 14 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of Up Thr Prin.Secy.Krishi Shiksha Evam Anusandhan&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uttam Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri R.C. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma learned counsel for the opposite parties 2,3 and 4.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Government order dated 29th May, 2019 and the orders dated 20th June, 2019 whereby the scale of pay which was granted to the petitioners along with grade pay has been cancelled and the recovery has been directed to be effected from the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court for grant of regular pay scale of the post of Assistant Professor on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The aforesaid writ petitions had been allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2006 and in pursuance thereof the scale of pay demanded by the petitioners was granted to them. Subsequently at the time of passing of the impugned orders, the petitioners had been granted the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with grad pay of Rs. 7000/8000/- vide Order dated 2nd December, 2016. It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 29th My, 2019 has been passed with the directions to the subordinate authorities to take immediate steps for cancellation of the earlier order dated 2nd December, 2016 and for effecting recoveries against them after providing opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in pursuance of the said directions, the earlier order dated 2nd December, 2016 has been cancelled vide impugned order dated 20th June, 2019 and vide separate orders of the same date, notices have been issued to the petitioners for submitting their replies.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to passing of the impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been granted to the petitioners nor have their submissions been recorded in the impugned ordrs thereby vitiating the said impugned orders.
Sri Uttam Verma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to 4 has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after the report submitted by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division and submits that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of report submitted by the Commissioner although at present there is no material to indicate as to whether the Commissioner had given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not prior to submission of the report.
A perusal of the impugned order does not reveal as to whether any opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been granted to the petitioners prior to passing of the said orders. There is not even a basic recording of any submission of any of the petitioners in the orders impugned herein. The impugned order dated 29th May, 2019 in paragraph 7 specifically states that the order dated 2nd December, 2016 is to be cancelled and recovery is to be effected from the petitioners while giving due opportunity of hearing to them.
It does not stand to reason as to why the impugned orders have been passed in such a haste without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while at the same time providing for opportunity of hearing to the petitioners after directions have been issued for cancellation of the order dated 2nd December.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners require consideration for which the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file a detailed counter affidavit. In the mean time, the operation of the impugned orders dated 29th May, 2019 and 20th June, 2019 annexed as Annexures No. 1 to 3 collectively to the petition shall remain stayed. However the opposite parties are granted liberty to continue the hearing with regard to the dispute in pursuance of the show cause notices which have been issued by them to the petitioners.
List this case in the week commencing 5th August, 2019.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
GK Sinha
