AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 287 wordsAjay Mohan Goel, J
Notice. Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) whereby the pay of the petitioner has been refixed and reduced.
(b) This Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to reduce the salary of the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 29.01.2026."
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the very threshold submitted that the impugned office order dated 29.01.2026 is per se bad in the eyes of law as the same has been issued at the back of the petitioner without grant of any opportunity to the petitioner on the issue.
As the impugned order does not demonstrates that the same was passed after hearing the petitioner, obviously, the same is bad in law, because, it has been passed by violating the principles of natural justice i.e., the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. Accordingly, this petition is allowed on the short count and impugned office order dated 29.01.2026 is quashed and set aside. However, as the petition is being allowed on a purely technical ground, the respondent-Corporation is hereby given liberty to issue a notice to the petitioner on the subject matter of the office order, which stands set aside and take appropriate action in terms of the notification referred to in the impugned office order by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.