Anish Ahmed vs Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation Ltd. And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest

Development Corporation / respondent nos. 1 to 3 and, with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner’s complaint, in short, is that, pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2679 of 2015 dated 7.04.2017, the

Grade-Pay of the petitioner, along with other members of the Association, was fixed as Rs. 8,700/- by proceedings dated 18.07.2017; aggrieved

thereby, certain Class-1 and Class-2 officers of the respondent-Corporation preferred Special Appeal No. 523 of 2017, which was dismissed by a

Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 06.10.2017; thereafter, with mala fide intention, the second respondent passed the order dated

26.04.2018 cancelling the order passed on 18.07.2017 in compliance with the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2679 of 2015 dated

07.04.2017; the Governing Body of the respondent-Corporation, in its 64th meeting held on 23.05.2018, cancelled the order passed by the second

respondent dated 26.04.2018, and revived the earlier order dated 18.07.2017, subsequent to which the petitioner continued to be extended the salary in

the Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700/-; the second respondent had an audit caused by the Auditor General of the State of Uttarakhand with regards fixation of

salary; and, subsequent thereto, the second respondent cancelled the order of fixation dated 18.04.2017 on 28.02.2019, questioning which the petitioner

has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

While several contentions, including that the action of the second respondent, who is arrayed as a respondent eo nomine (respondent no. 4) and the

third respondent, who is also arrayed as a respondent eo nomine (respondent no. 5), is mala fide have been urged, it is unnecessary for us to examine

these contentions, as we find considerable force in the submission of Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order

was passed without putting the petitioner on notice, and without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

Ms. Seema Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, had initially contended that, though the petitioner’s pay had been

revised vide proceedings dated 18.07.2017, he was not given the benefit of the said Grade-Pay.

The petitioner, thereafter, filed a supplementary affidavit, a copy of which was served on the respondents and a copy of which is now placed before

us. As per the said affidavit, the petitioner was paid the Grade-Pay of Rs. 8,700/- ever since August, 2017 till it was stopped by the proceedings dated

28.02.2019.

Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that a common notice was issued to the employees, and the petitioner could also

have submitted a representation thereto.

The requirement of law is that a person’s pay or allowances cannot be reduced without putting him on notice, and without giving him an

opportunity of being heard. That a general notice was issued to some other employees and they submitted their representations thereto, would not

justify reduction in the Grade-Pay of the petitioner without putting him on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

The impugned order dated 28.02.2019 must be, and is accordingly, set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Suffice it to

make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the respondents from issuing a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause

as to why his Grade-Pay should not be reduced, giving him an opportunity to submit his reply to the show cause, and thereafter to take action against

him in accordance with law.

Before parting with the case, we must take note of the submission of Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was

asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he had filed a supplementary affidavit in this Court without obtaining

permission to leave station.

Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was called upon by this Court to file a supplementary

affidavit in the light of the submission of Ms. Seema Sah, learned Standing Counsel, that the respondent-Corporation was not paying him the benefit of

the Grade-Pay of Rs. 8,700/-, as extended to him by proceedings dated 18.07.2017.

It is indeed disconcerting that an employee, who Sri Shobhit Saharia submits met him after office hours, should be called upon to show cause why

action should not be taken against her for leaving station to file a supplementary affidavit before this Court.

While such proceedings, prima facie, amount to contempt of Court, as it interferes with the administration of justice (Govind Sahai and another vs.

State of U.P. and another : AIR 1968 SC 1513), we refrain from saying anything more, since the order, impugned in the writ petition, has itself been

quashed.

Needless to state that, on the impugned order being quashed, the earlier order dated 18.07.2017 would revive and the petitioner would be entitled

to be extended benefits in terms thereof.

Recording our concern of the action of the respondent-officials in, prima facie, seeking to interfere with the administration of justice, we refrain

from saying anything more.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs.