Allahabad High Court
P.K.Srivastava And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. ... on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10503 of 2020
Petitioner :- P.K.Srivastava And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Revenue And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Komal Prasad Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard.
Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 4, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the pay of the petitioners have been re-fixed and recovery has been directed. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to count the service period rendered in the Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation for the purpose of their seniority, increments as well as other pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were retrenched employees of the Corporation and they were absorbed in the State Government. Subsequent thereto, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9165-72 of 2010 Inre; Sunil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P and ors, his pay re-fixation had also been done.
All of a sudden, the impugned order dated12.02.2020 has been passed by the respondents whereby the pay re-fixation of the petitioners have been directed whereby the petitioner's pay has been lowered and recovery has also been directed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a specific ground has been taken by the petitioners in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and it being a settled proposition of law that any order passed to the detriment of an employee has to be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to them and any such order if passed without opportunity of hearing would be in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and would be void ab initio.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 154 and Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron ores Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 9 SCC 683.
On the other hand, learned Standing counsel argues on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit that as the pay of the petitioners had been fixed incorrectly, consequently the respondents have proceeded to pass the order by which their pay has been fixed correctly and recovery has been directed and thus there is no infirmity in the said order.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what is apparent is that by means of the impugned order dated 12.02.2020, the respondents have proceeded to re-fixed the pay of the petitioners and also directed for recovery. The specific averment made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that no notice had been given to the petitioners prior to the impugned order being passed has not been specifically rebutted to in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to indicate that any notice had been given to the petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order.
It is settled proposition of law that an order passed to the detriment of an employee without affording opportunity of hearing would be non-est in the eyes of law.
In this regard, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Bhagwan Shukla and Sandur Manganese and Iron ores Ltd. and Ors (supra) is well settled.
Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.02.2020, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition being against the principle of natural justice and is quashed.
However, it would be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. As regards, the claim of the petitioners for counting of their previous service, it would be open for the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to the respondents which would be decided in accordance with law.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
Pachhere/-
