WP/4668/2017 of Capt. Syed Ahamedullah Vs Union of India on 7 October 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 through video conferencing mode.

2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition, has assailed the action of the fifth respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 30.12.2016 and to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the third to fifth respondents to restore his pay scale with effect from July 2009 to September 2014 and thereafter from October 2014 and higher pay scale.

WP No. 4668 of 2017

3. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the fifth respondent had issued common impugned proceedings in respect of various employees working under the third respondent, including the petitioner; and that on a challenge being made to the said proceedings by similarly placed employees before this Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 03.07.2017 in W.P.Nos.2158 to 2160 of 2017, had set aside the impugned order on the ground that the said order had been passed without providing opportunity to the employees.

4. It is also further contended that another Coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 27.07.2016 in W.P.Nos.25462 to 25466 of 2016, had also considered the said impugned proceedings and thus, the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions would squarely be applicable to the case of the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 does not dispute the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. I have taken note of the contentions urged by the learned counsel on either side.

WP No. 4668 of 2017

7. Admittedly, the fifth respondent, before issuing the impugned proceedings, did not issue any notice to the petitioner and, by a unilateral act, had issued the impugned proceedings.

8. Taking note of the said unilateral act, this Court, in its order dated 03.07.2017 in W.P.No.2158 of 2017, had observed that this Court is not inclined to adjudicate on the merits of the matter, as the impugned order was issued without complying with the basic principles of natural justice and also considering the principle that no employee can be deprived of the scale of pay without providing an opportunity, had set-aside the proceeding impugned therein.

9. This Court is of the view that the view taken by the Coordinate Bench is also applicable to the present case. Thus, in order to maintain parity and judicial discipline, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings, which have already been set aside by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of the petitioners therein, and the petitioner in the present case being similarly placed, is entitled to be granted the same relief.

10. Thus, the impugned proceeding, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is set aside. The respondents are directed to take further action in terms of the order dated 03.07.2017 in W.P.Nos.2158 to 2160 of 2017.

WP No. 4668 of 2017

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as noted above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No order as to costs. 07-10-2026 (1/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KLT To

1. The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Shipping, No.1, Parliamentary Street, New Delhi-110 001.

2. The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110 001.

3. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.

4. The Secretary, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1

5. Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.

WP No. 4668 of 2017

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. KLT WP No. 4668 of 2017 and WMP Nos. 4909 of 2017 & 19042 of 2021 07-10-2026 (1/2)