Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 432 (RAJ)

Bhairu Lal Buddhgai v. State of Rajasthan

2009-02-10

K.S.RATHORE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The short controversy involved in this writ petition is that vide order dated 17.08.1976 the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC cum Steno in Rajasthan Handloom Development Corporation, Jaipur in the pay scale of Rs. 110-230 and vide order dated 17.03.1977 he was also given appointment under Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited on the post of Stenographer Grade-II in the pay scale of 185-7-220- EB-8-292. The petitioner was granted first selection grade w.e.f. 25.01.1992 and vide order dated 20.01.1996, he was granted second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service w.e.f. 01.12.1995. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.07.1989, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Stenographer w.e.f. 20.08.1976. 2. After completion of 27 years of service, the petitioner was entitled to get third selection grade for which the Government has also issued order dated 18.07.2006 for approval of grant of third selection scale to the petitioner, but instead of granting third selection grade, the respondents refused to grant the same and withdrawn the second selection scale granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.1995 and the excess payment which was made to the petitioner was also ordered to be recovered from him. 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned dated 31.01.2008, by which the second selection grade granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking writ, order or direction to set aside the order impugned dated 31.01.2008 and also seeking relief that the respondents be directed to grant third selection scale to the petitioner in the carder of Stenographer i.e. P.A. as the petitioner after rendering 27 years of service voluntary retired from service on 30.09.2007. 4. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the on completion of 9 years of service first selection scale was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.10.1994 w.e.f. 25.01.1992 and second selection scale was granted on completion of 18 years of service vide order dated 20.01.1996 w.e.f. 01.12.1995, but the selection scale granted to the petitioner is contrary to the circular dated 25.01.1992 as the petitioner had already been given first promotion from the post of LDC to Steno Grade-II vide order dated 13.01.1978 w.e.f. 01.12.1977 and second promotion to the post of Personal Assistant vide order dated 26.08.1992 w.e.f. 04.06.1992 and as such, any benefit taken by the petitioner under the bonafide mistake, the same is corrected vide order dated 31.01.2008. 5. It is also contended that the petitioner was appointed as LDC on 17.08.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 110-230 and he joined his services on 20.08.1976. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II vide order dated 13.01.1978 w.e.f 01.12.1977 and second promotion was given to him to the post of Personal Assistant vide order dated 26.08.1992 w.e.f. 04.06.1992 and the selection scale can only be granted if the petitioner would not have been promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II and Personal Assistant. 6. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 31.01.2008 as also the circulars and material available on the record. 7. It is not disputed that the order impugned dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure-11) withdrawing the selection scale was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and that too after voluntary retirement of the petitioner. As per the bare minimum principle of natural justice, the petitioner was required to be heard before withdrawing the selection grade, may be given to him contrary to the circular and by mistake. 8. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deem it proper to quash and set aside the order impugned dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure-11) and direct the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law and the circular after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******