Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners, working as Meter Readers in respondent Water Authority, were given the benefit of higher grade pay about eight years ago. When the petitioners sought further higher grade pay on account of their completing twenty two years of service, the respondent Water Authority, instead, issued Exhibits P8 and P9 proceedings holding that higher grade pay granted earlier to the petitioners was without their entitlement, and that all steps should be taken to recover the amounts allegedly paid in excess, apart from withdrawing the benefit of higher grade pay already granted. Assailing Exhibits P8 and P9 proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Water Authority has submitted that it is for the petitioners to submit a suitable representation before the second respondent concerning the tenability of Exhibits P8 and P9 proceedings and once such a representation is filed, the second respondent will be taking all further steps to redress the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are willing to make a suitable representation before the second respondent. Before the said representation could be considered, the respondent authority shall not take coercive steps pursuant to Exhibits P8 and P9 proceedings.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition making it clear that the petitioners are at liberty to file a suitable representation before the second respondent concerning the legality and tenability of Exhibits P8 and P9 proceedings. Once the said representation is filed, needless to observe, the second respondent shall make all efforts to redress the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as possible.
6. It is evident from the record that the benefit is said to have been granted to the petitioners more than eight years ago. At this juncture, the respondent authorities issued Exhibits P8 and P9 without any due process, especially without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to put forward their defence concerning the proposed action. It is only just and proper to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps pursuant to Exhibits P8 and P9 proceedings until a decision is taken on the representation to be filed by the petitioners.
In the light of the direction given above, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that to have a decision on the issue, the petitioners shall file a representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv