Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed orders dated 22.1.2019 and 12.4.2019, passed by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, whereby the salary of the petitioner is being reduced for the reason that the petitioner has been granted benefit of IIIrd A.C.P. wrongly and thereby the excess amount, which has been paid to the petitioner, shall be adjusted from future salary of the petitioner and from the other dues.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the orders dated 22.1.2019 and 12.4.2019, no opportunity of any kind whatsoever has been afforded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the benefit of the pay scale of the petitioner was granted by the Department following relevant guidelines of the Government order as indicated in Annexure no.4, which is office memo dated 20.10.2011. He has further submitted that vide office memo dated 27.9.2013, pay of the petitioner was fixed strictly following the relevant government orders.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid benefits were granted to the petitioner in the year 2011 and 2013 but all of sudden, without any cogent reason to that effect the impugned order dated 22.1.2019 has been issued and its consequential order dated 12.4.2019 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition).
From a perusal of the aforesaid impugned order does not reveal that as to how the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the aforesaid orders. This is trite law, if any, impugned order which involves civil consequences may not be passed in violation of the principal of nature justice.
Since it appears that the impugned order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice, therefore, those orders may not be executed till the disposal of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that besides the aforesaid grounds the impugned orders are in utter violations of settled proposition of law as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-18 of the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that after retirement of Class-III or Class-IV employee, no recovery can be made.
I have perused para-18 of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and also perused the material available on record and I am of the considered opinion that prima-facie both the impugned orders dated 22.01.2019 and 12.04.2019 (Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition) are uncalled for.
The matter requires consideration.
Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List this petition after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Until further order of this Court, the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 22.01.2019 and 12.04.2019 (Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]