Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 487 (MP)

Ram Niwas Upadhyay v. State of M. P.

2016-06-21

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.10.2007 by which the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn unilaterally. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted Kramonnati on 19.10.2004. Thereafter by order dated 29.11.2005, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Horticulture Officer. It is further submitted that the order dated 31st March, 2001 issued by General Administration Department, Government of M.P. does not apply to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was granted the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale prior to issuance of the order of promotion. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. 4. Learned Government Advocate was unable to point out from the record that either any notice was issued or any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the impugned order of withdrawing the benefit of Kramonnati pay scale has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that benefit of Kramonnati pay scale was granted to the petitioner on 19.10.2004 thereafter petitioner submitted an application that he does not want to be promoted on the post of Horticulture Officer subsequently on 29.11.2005. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent that irrespective of the order dated 31st March, 2001 to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the impugned order entails civil consequences. 7. In view of the fact that impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly quashed. Needless to state that respondents would be at liberty to take action against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. D. P. Singh for petitioner; R.B.S. Tomar, Government Advocate for respondents/State.