Ashwani Kumar Dutta vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—The Assistant Development Officers (Agriculture) were conferred the Gazetted status as per notification dated 10.5.1988. The Petitioner was released the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 on completion of eight years of service vide notification dated 5.11.1999. However, the same was withdrawn on the basis of corrigendum dated 9.1.2001.

Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the Petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before the issuance of corrigendum dated 9.1.2001. He then contended that his client was eligible for the release of pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 as per Annexure A-2 dated 18.7.1992.

Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the Respondents were within their right to correct the mistake which had occurred while granting senior scale of Rs. 10025-15100 to the Petitioner. He then contended that the Petitioner was not entitled to this scale on the basis of clarification sought from the State Government, including Annexure R-1, dated 27.2.1996.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

The Petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 on completion of eight years of service on 5.11.1999. The Petitioner has neither misrepresented nor misled the authorities at the time of release of this pay scale. The scale was granted to the Petitioner on 5.11.1999. The Petitioner was not heard before the issuance of corrigendum dated 9.1.2001. The Petitioner has suffered severe civil and evil consequences after the issuance of corrigendum dated 9.1.2001. He was required to be heard before the issuance of letter dated 9.1.2001.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs. D.Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under (para 26):

Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of - 3 principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

The representation made by the Petitioner has been rejected on 31.5.2001 without a speaking order. The same was required to be decided by a speaking/self-contained order.

Mr. Dilip Sharma has also drawn the attention of the Court to paras 1 and 2 of Annexure A-2, dated 18.7.1992. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 3.6.1995.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-5 and A-6 dated 9.1.2001 and 31.5.2001, respectively are quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the Respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner. The Respondents while deciding the matter afresh, shall take Annexures A-2 and A-3, dated 18.7.1992 and 3.6.1995 into consideration. There will, however, be no order as to costs.