Delhi High Court
Gobinda Ch. Behera & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 July, 2014
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2767/2014
GOBINDA CH. BEHERA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Prashant Sivarajan, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 16.07.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks for quashing the
signals dated January 4, 2014 and February 6, 2014 and to fix the pay of
the petitioner at Rs.9910/- with effect from January 01, 2006.
2. The facts relevant to the case at hand are that the petitioner joined
the CRPF in the year 2003 as HC(RO) in the pay scale of Rs.3200-85-
4900. After implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission, the pay of
the petitioner was revised to Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of
Rs.2000/- . The pay of the petitioner was refixed by the concerned signal
Unit and audited by IAP-III at Rs.7510/-, with effect from January 01,
2006. Vide signals dated January 04, 2014 and February 06, 2014,
passed by Respondent No. 5 and 6, pay of the petitioner was stepped
down to Rs.8630/- from Rs.10,190, stating that the petitioner had
erroneously been granted annual increment with effect from 1.7.2006.
Aggrieved by the said signals, petitioner preferred a representation dated
8th April 2014 to the Commandant, 2nd Signal Bn., CRPF, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh, but to no avail.
3. Addressing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Prashant
Sivarajan, Advocate, submits that no request was ever made by the
petitioner seeking re-fixation of pay nor was there any mis-representation
on his part at the time of the fixation of his pay and as such respondents
were bound to serve a notice upon the petitioner before re-fixing the pay
of the petitioner to his detriment. Even otherwise, once pay had been
fixed by the respondent, no recovery could have been made except in
accordance with law, which necessitated serving a show cause notice
before affecting any recovery. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
contended that the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench
judgment of this court in W.P. (C) No. 4295/2011, titled B. D. Dubey &
ors. V. Union of India& Ors. and the similar view has been reiterated in
the recent judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in the
case of Manoj Pawar V. Union OF India & Ors. W.P. (C ) No. 3194/
2014, wherein the Court held that if the respondents intended to take any
action to re-fix the pay of the petitioner to the detriment of the petitioner,
a show cause notice containing the reasons would be issued at first and
thereon a decision would be taken after giving an opportunity to the
petitioner to be heard.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also
perused the judgment relied upon by the petitioner.
5. To detail our view, we find support from the Judgment of the co-
ordinate bench of this court in the case of Manoj Pawar (supra), wherein
on similar facts, relying on B.D. Dubey's case (supra) the court
considered the following aspects: whether the petitioners' pay scale can
be downgraded and secondly, if it is held that the pay scale can be
downgraded, whether recoveries can be made. Discussing and answering
the aforesaid queries, the Court held as under:
" 10. The answers to the aforesaid questions, in our
considered opinion must be in the negative on both
counts. The action of the respondents impugned in the
present writ petition, in our view, cannot stand
scrutiny and smacks of arbitrariness.
11. In the result, we allow the writ petition quashing
the impugned signals dated February 06, 2014 with a
direction to the respondents that the petitioner would
continue to draw pay and allowances in Pay Band-I in
the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of
Rs. 2400/- thereby amounting to a sum of Rs. 9910/-,
with effect from January 01, 2006.
12. Needless to state that if the respondents intend to
take any action to re-fix the pay of the petitioner to
the detriment of the petitioner, a show cause notice
would be issued containing the reasons therefore and
a decision would be taken thereon after giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. No
recoveries shall be effected from the petitioner till
then.
13. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms."
6. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the decision of the
coordinate Bench of this court in Manoj Pawar (supra) and deems it fit
to allow the present writ petition in the above terms, quashing the
impugned signals dated 4.1.2014 and 6.2.2014 with a direction to the
respondents that the petitioner would continue to draw pay and
allowances in the basic pay of Rs.9910/- with effect from January 01,
2006.
7. Thus, in view of the above, nothing survives to be decided, hence
the petition stands disposed off in terms of the judgment dated
27.05.2014 in the case of Manoj Pawar V. Union of India & ors., W.P.
(C) 3194 of 2014.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JULY 16, 2014
pkb
