Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8198 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikram Singh Shrivastava,Anubhav Chandra,Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 06.01.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 10.07.2020 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the re-fixation of the salary of the petitioner was done without any opportunity of hearing.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to give the regular salary to the petitioner as given to him prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 06.01.2021 and 10.07.2020."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Account Clerk in Rural Development Department on 07.08.1986. It is argued that in terms of Government Order dated 30th September, 2003, the post of Junior Accounts Clerk was declared as dying cadre with a provision that the erstwhile Department Accounts Clerk will get a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and shall be re-designated as Assistant Accountant. There was further provision of merger of the post of the Account Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with the post of Assistant Accountant.
In terms of the said Government Order, an order was passed providing higher pay scale to the and the petitioner was given the said pay scale in terms of the Government Order dated 30.09.2003 and 26.4.2006. It is further argued that subsequently, the petitioner became an employee of Subordinate Accounts Cadre.
The petitioner is aggrieved on account of an order dated 10.7.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the salary of the petitioner was re-fixed and a consequential order of re-fixation of the salary has also been passed by the respondent no. 3.
The neat contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to passing of the said orders, no opportunity of hearing was granted. He argues that the said issue as arises in the case of the petitioner has been covered by a judgment of this Court dated 8.3.2019 passed in Service Single No. 30794 of 2017 (Brijendra Kumar Tripathi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and others). He thus argues that if a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he could have explained his case.
I have perused the order impugned, which does not disclose any opportunity of hearing or issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner as the order reducing the salary adversely affects the petitioner, the principles of natural justice were to be followed implicitly even if not provided for.
In view of the said fact, only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the orders dated 6.1.2021 and 10.7.2020 are set aside with a liberty to the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh orders after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, if so advised.
The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
S. Rahman
