Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 955 (PAT)

Abha Sahai v. State of Bihar

2004-09-13

body2004
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder which may be taken on the record. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.K. Shahi for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. 6 for the State. 3. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 7.10.2003, as contained in annexure 1, by which the higher scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- earlier allowed to her with effect from 1.1.1996 has been reduced to the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order annexure 1 was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He contends that the petitioner had earlier moved the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division and pursuant to the order of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division vide order dated 14.12.1999 passed by Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, DRDA, respondent no. 3 as contained in annexure 8. she was granted the higher scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- with effect from 1.1.1996. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the State respondents submits that in terms of the Government resolution dated 8.2.1999 the petitioner cannot be allowed the higher scale of Rs, 5000-8000 as she was never promoted to the post of head clerk by the competent authority. In this connection, he also referred to the statement of fixation of scale as contained in annexure D to the counter affidavit which contains the undertaking of the petitioner dated 27.4.2000 whereunder she had agreed to refund the excess amount paid to her in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in the event the payment in the higher scale was found to be erroneous. 6. in reply, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order itself was passed without hearing the petitioner and to that effect the petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph 17 of the writ application to which the respondents have not chosen to submit any reply and as such the matter should be taken as concluded that the impugned order as contained in annexure 1 has been passed without hearing the petitioner. 7. As the impugned order dated 1.10.2003, Annexure-1 itself does not indicate that the same was being passed after hearing the petitioner, I am of the view that before reducing the higher scale of Rs.5000-8000/- to the scale of Rs. 7. As the impugned order dated 1.10.2003, Annexure-1 itself does not indicate that the same was being passed after hearing the petitioner, I am of the view that before reducing the higher scale of Rs.5000-8000/- to the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/ - the authorities were required to have heard the petitioner and as admittedly no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed, I deem it expedient to quash the same with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the competent authority, namely, The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Authority, Samastipur, on 4.10.2004 on which date the Chief Executive Officer shall serve the grounds on which he proposes to reduce the scale of the petitioner from 5000-8000 to 4000-6000/- and thereafter the petitioner will submit her reply within another three weeks and the Chief Executive Officer shall pass a speaking order on the contention of the petitioner after giving her opportunity of being heard in person also. Payment of arrears will be subject to the result of the orders of the Deputy Development Commissioner. 8. This disposes of this writ application. No costs.