Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 312 (PAT)

Madan Mohan Prasad v. State of Bihar

2012-02-23

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER NAVIN SINHA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners are stated to be Irrigation Revenue Inspectors. The order dated 14.12.2009 states that those who fulfilled the requirements for grant of first and second ACP prior to 17.5.2005 are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 respectively. 3. It is not in dispute that the order came to be implemented and the monetary benefits paid to the petitioners. 4. The impugned order dated 23.8.2011 followed thereafter. It states that the matter for grant of ACP to Irrigation Revenue Inspectors, who have acquired eligibility before 17.5.2005, was under consideration of the Government. The opinion of the Finance Department had been obtained. The order dated 14.12.2009 was being modified reducing their pay scale to Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4500-7000 for the first and second ACP respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier order dated 14.12.2009 having been implemented and the pay scale enhanced and paid, the impugned order visits them with adverse civil consequences when it seeks to reduce their pay scale. No show cause notice or opportunity to defend the pay scale given was provided. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that it was a matter regarding fixation of pay scale. The respondents have applied their mind to the issue as reflected in the impugned order. It has also been decided not to make any recovery. 7. The Court may interfere with financial matters on aspects of pay scale. The Court in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is primarily concerned with the decision making process rather than the decision itself. Even if matters of pay scale are the prerogative of the Government, once having taken a decision and implemented it, the Government is required to follow principle of natural justice if it intends to adversely affect the beneficiaries by any subsequent order. Such action cannot be defended on the simple premise that it was a pay scale matter. 8. The impugned order undoubtedly visits the petitioners with adverse civil consequences when it lowers their pay scale. The assurance that no recovery shall be made can be no justification to cause permanent loss to the petitioners thereafter. The impugned order dated 23.8.2011 is, therefore, not sustainable in its present form. 8. The impugned order undoubtedly visits the petitioners with adverse civil consequences when it lowers their pay scale. The assurance that no recovery shall be made can be no justification to cause permanent loss to the petitioners thereafter. The impugned order dated 23.8.2011 is, therefore, not sustainable in its present form. It is accordingly set aside, without prejudice to the rights of the respondents afresh in accordance with law. 9. This order shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the respondents while passing a fresh order in accordance with law. This writ application is allowed. ?