SCA/7500/1995 of BHAGUBHAI GAMANBHAI PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 7 December 1995

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By thispetition the petitioner has challenged the legality,validity and correctness of the order dated 21-3-1994 passedby the Collector, Valsad, submitted along with the writpetition at annexure-J. In pursuance of the scheme of theState of Gujarat giving higher pay-scale on completion ofnine years' service, the petitioner's pay was fixedaccordingly vide order dated 15-1-1992 ofthe Collector,Valsad. The petitioner was given the benefit of higherpay-scale with effect from 1-6-1987. Under the impugnedorder, by cancelling the aforesaid order, the petitioner wasordered to be given the benefit of higher pay-scale witheffect from 9-6-1989.

2. In this case rule was issued on 5-9-1995 and interimrelief in terms of para 13(C) has also been granted infavour of the petitioner. In para 13(C) the petitionerprayed for interim relief that respondent No.2 be restrainedfrom implementing the order dated 21-3-1994 annexure-J andbe further directed not to reduce the pay of the petitionerand recover the amount of higher pay scale given to him from1-6-1987 to 9-6-1989 and be further directed to continue togive the petitioner the higher pay-scale fixed by theCollector, Valsad, vide order dated 15-1-1992 annexure-E.In view of the aforesaid interim order, the order dated 21stMarch,1994 has not been given effect to.

3. One of the grievances made by the petitioner in thepetition is that the order dated 21st March,1994 has beenpassed without hearing the petitioner, and in violation ofthe principles of natural justice. Mrs. Mehta, learnedcounsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated21st March,1994 ensues civil consequences. The petitionerhas been given the higher pay-scale from 1-6-1987 which hasbeen reduced to lower pay-scale for the period from 1-6-1987to 9-6-1989 and as such he will suffer heavy monetary loss.Though the order dated 21st March,1994 is an administrativeorder, nevertheless it results in civil consequences and assuch it was incumbent upon the respondent -Collector, Valsadto give notice and afford an opportunity to the petitionerto make his submissions. Principles of natural justice areapplicable to administrative actions. The respondents havenot filed reply to the writ petition and the factualaverments as made therein stand uncontroverted. It is notthe case of learned counsel for the respondents that theorder dated 21st March,1994 has been passed after giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.The order dated 21st March,1994 has resulted in reducing thepay of the petitioner. The petitioner was given the higherpay-scale from 1-6-1987, whereas by the said order he hasbeen given the higher pay scale from 9-6-1989. It resultsin depriving the higher pay-scale to the petitioner from1-6-1987 to 9-6-1989. The petitioner's case is that underthe Government Resolution he is entitled to higher pay-scalefrom 1-6-1987. This right of the petitioner to have thehigher pay-scale from 1-6-1987 has been denied to himwithout any notice and opportunity of hearing.

5. Though the order dated 21st March,1994 is anadministrative order, but nevertheless it has resulted inserious civil consequences of loss of monetary benefits. Iagree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that theprinciples of natural justice ought to have been followed bythe authority before passing the said order. In view of thefact that this writ petition succeeds on this ground alone,I do not consider it necessary to call upon the parties toaddress on other points raised in the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that incase this order is set aside only on the ground that thepetitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing,the respondents may be given liberty to consider the matterafresh after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. Ifail to see any justification in the submission made by thelearned counsel for the respondents. When this court allowsthe writ petition, finding a fault with the order of notfollowing the principles of natural justice, it is alwayspermissible to the authority to reconsider the matter andpass appropriate order after giving an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner.

7. In the result this writ petition is allowed. Theorder of the Collector dated 21st March,1994 annexure-J tothe petition is quashed and set aside only on the groundthat it has been passed without affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordinglywith no order as to costs.

���...........