Court No. - 62
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17821 of 2001 Petitioner :- Jhaman Lal Sharma Respondent :- Director Of Higher Education, U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Sachan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by respondent no. 1- Director, Higher Education, U.P., whereby promotion of the petitioner was cancelled and he was reverted, directing him to deposit difference of the salary.
The Court by its order dated 10.5.2001 while granting time to the standing counsel to file counter affidavit, stayed operation of the impugned order dated 4.4.2001, relevant part of which reads thus :
"The impugned order dated 4.4.2001 is stayed till further orders. It will, however, be open for the respondents to pass afresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioner."
Sri Sachan submits that petitioner was initially appointed as routine grade assistant on 14.4.1980 and was subsequently promoted vide order dated 10.7.1997 to the post of Senior Clerk and thereafter his salary was fixed by the Principal of the College vide order dated 11.8.1997 equivalent to respondent no. 4, who was junior to petitioner, in terms of Fundamental Rules, giving notional promotion to him from 21.3.1983.
Contention raised by Sri Sachan is that order impugned results in civil consequences and no opportunity whatsoever has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is next submitted that in pursuance of the interim order granted by the Court, respondents have failed to pass any fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
No counter affidavit has been filed till date by learned standing counsel despite grant of time as indicated above. Learned standing counsel prays for time to file counter affidavit.
This petition is pending since 2001 and in view of the order which I propose to pass in this case, there is no need to grant time for filing counter affidavit.
Indisputably, from the order impugned as well as the averments made in the writ petition which are uncontroverted, it is apparent that opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned which entails civil consequences. It is settled law that opportunity of hearing is must in such matters. Consequently, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the order impugned dated 4.4.2001 is set aside. However, it will be open to the respondents to pass order afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 SNT/