1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Priya Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 7.1.2020 and 31.1.2017, whereby re-fixation of salary has been made and recovery proceeding has been initiated for recovery of the certain amount which has been paid in excess to the petitioners.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially the salary of the petitioners was fixed taking into consideration the relevant provisions in the bank on certain conditions. Thereafter, as per the condition laid down in the order of fixation of salary, the impugned order dated 7.1.2020 has been passed, whereby by reducing the salary, re-fixation has been made.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to passing of the impugned orders, no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. He next submitted that without any order in writing, the respondents are proceeding to make recovery from the salary of the petitioners, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He next submits that the petitioners are discharging their duties with the full satisfaction of the respondents and there is no complaint against them, therefore, his submission is that the impugned orders have been passed in utter disregard of the settled principles of law.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents submit that on perusal of the impugned order, it is reflected that prior to passing of the order, no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. They submit that in case by setting aside the order dated 7.1.2020, the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity to the petitioners, justice would be met.
6. After having heard the contention advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
7. In case the respondents have admitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without providing opportunity to the petitioners in reducing the salary which they were getting earlier, it will be appropriate to set aside the order impugned and remand the matter back to the respondent No.4 to provide opportunity to the petitioners and pass fresh order.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7.1.2020 is hereby set aside.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
10. The respondent No.4 is directed to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
11. It is however made clear that the recovery, if made, shall be subject to the order passed in compliance of the order of this Court.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Gautam