Sh.Ramji Tripathi vs Secretary, Ministry Of ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1489 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No.10056/2004


%                       Date of Decision: 15.03.2011


Sh.Ramji Tripathi                                            .... Petitioner

                       Through Mr. A. Avneesh Mishra, Advocate for
                               Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate


                                 Versus


Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting &    .... Respondent
Ors.
                       Through Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may              Yes
         be allowed to see the judgment?
2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No
3.       Whether the judgment should be                      No
         reported in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

CM 550/2011 & 549/2011

Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate appears on behalf of the

respondent and on instructions, states that no reply to the application

for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application seeking

setting aside the order dated 17th August, 2010 is to be filed.

For the reasons stated in the applications, they are allowed. Delay

in filing the restoration application is condoned and the order dated

17th August, 2010, dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance

of the petitioner and his counsel, is set aside and the writ petition is

restored to its original number.

WP(C) No. 10056/2004

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th May, 2004

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in OA 2793/2007 titled as 'Ramji Tripathi Vs. Secretary, Ministry

of Information and Broadcasting & Ors.' dismissing his application

against the order dated 7th November, 2003 without any notice to him

and without hearing him after fixing his pensionary benefits by order

dated 9th May, 2002

2. The petitioner was working as an officer with the Indian

Information Service, who superannuated from service on 28th February,

2002.

3. The petitioner was intimated by order dated 9th May, 2002 about

his pensionary benefits and basic amount of pension was fixed at

Rs.9200/-.

4. Later on without giving any intimation or show cause notice

about modification of his pension, by order dated 7th November, 2003,

Senior Accounts Officer of PAO of the Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting intimated to the Dy. Secretary, Ministry of I&B that the

pension of the petitioner had been erroneously finalized by allowing

fixation of pay in the scale of Rs.18400-500-22400/-. According to the

respondents, the pay of the petitioner had been erroneously fixed in the

said scale, therefore, his pension was revised by restricting his pay

drawn up to 28th February, 2002.

5. The reason for revision of the pension as stated by the

respondents was that the grant of pro-forma promotion to the petitioner

in the scale of Rs.18400-500-22400 was conditional subject to actual

promotion effective from the date of the petitioner joining the duty in

India.

6. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not join duty in

India, therefore he was not entitled for fixation of pay in the pay scale of

Rs.18400-400-500-22400 and consequently the pension of the

petitioner was revised from Rs.9200/- to 8070/- by order dated 20th

October, 2003.

7. The order was challenged by the petitioner, however, the Tribunal

dismissed the OA on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the

conditions attached to the proforma promotion and consequently, if the

petitioner had not complied with the condition of proforma promotion,

he would not be entitled for the same and consequently the respondents

were entitled to modify the pension in accordance with rules.

8. Be that as it may, this cannot be disputed that the order revising

the pension on the ground that the condition for pro-forma promotion

had not been complied with, had an adverse impact on the rights of the

petitioner about his pension which had been determined and intimated

by order dated 9th May, 2002. Consequently, the respondents were

liable to give an opportunity to the petitioner before passing an order

reducing his pension on the ground that the condition for pro-forma

promotion was not complied with by the petitioner.

9. It is also admitted that the respondents had not given any show

cause notice to the petitioner as to why his pension be not reduced nor

was he given any hearing on account of not complying with conditional

pro-forma promotion.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

is entitled for hearing and consideration of his explanation before any

decision is taken reducing or modifying the pension amount which was

intimated to him by order dated 9th May, 2002. The learned counsel for

the respondents have not been able to show anything on the basis of

which it can be inferred that the petitioner was heard and reasonable

opportunity was given to the petitioner before modifying the amount of

his pension.

11. In the circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the

order dated 20th October, 2003 reducing the pension of the petitioner

from Rs.9200/- to Rs.8070/- per month without giving any opportunity

of being heard to the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are

permitted to decide whether the pension of the petitioner is liable to be

reduced or not after giving appropriate show cause notice and hearing

to the petitioner.

12. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the order of

the Tribunal dated 19th May, 2004 in O.A No. 2793 of 2003 titled 'Ramji

Tripathi Vs Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors'

is set aside along with order dated 20th October, 2003 of the

respondents reducing the pension of the petitioner from Rs.9200 to

Rs.8070, as the order reducing the pension was passed without giving a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The

respondents shall be entitled to pass appropriate order, if any, reducing

the pension of the petitioner on the grounds that he had not fulfilled the

condition for pro-forma promotion, after giving a reasonable opportunity

to the petitioner and considering his explanation if any. Needful be

done by the respondents within six months after receipt of the copy of

this order. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties

are, however, left to bear their own costs. All the pending applications

are also disposed of.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

March 15, 2011                                  VEENA BIRBAL, J.
'rs'