Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 223 (MP)

Mohan Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2020-02-11

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2020
ORDER 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 13.9.2018 (Annexure P-9) and 7.12.2018 (Annexure P-8). He also prayed that para 4 of the Finance Department Circular dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) which provides for eligibility criteria for grant of higher time pay scale is irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned orders, the benefit of first/second higher time pay scale granted to them has been cancelled interalia stating that the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed for promotion. In respect of the employees whose names are mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4, 5. 6, 7 and 8 of Annexure P-10 dated 13.9.2018, it has been directed that their pay scale to be revised and the excess payment to be recovered alongwith the interest from their salary. 2. The petitioners are working on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the department since 27.12.1993 and 18.6.1990 respectively. As per the circular dated 24.1.2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, the benefit of Time Pay Scale was given to the Government servants who have completed requisite number of years of service. The Finance Department further issued a circular dated 30th September, 2014 to extend the benefit of 3rd Time Pay Scale to the Government Servants who have completed 30 years of services from the date of first appointment. It is urged that the services of the petitioners are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Water Resources Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 as amended form time to time. They were appointed in accordance with the Rules. 3. As per the scheme dated 24.1.2008, on completion of 10 years of service, by order dated 8.9.2014 the benefit of higher pay scale was given to the petitioner No. 1 and by order dated 25.11.2011 higher pay scale was given to the petitioner No. 2. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the pay of the petitioners was fixed accordingly. 4. After a lapse of 4 and 8 years, the respondent No. 4 on the authority of the clarification circular cancelled the orders of grant of higher time pay scale on the ground that the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria required for the promotion to the higher posts. 5. 4. After a lapse of 4 and 8 years, the respondent No. 4 on the authority of the clarification circular cancelled the orders of grant of higher time pay scale on the ground that the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria required for the promotion to the higher posts. 5. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground that the impugned orders cancelling the orders for grant of higher time pay scale have been passed without any show-cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also stated that, recovery in pursuance to the impugned orders is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors. v. Rafiq Mashih (White Washers) 2015(1) MPHT 130 SC. 6. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that the impugned orders were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. From perusal of the records, we find that the impugned orders are passed without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thus the impugned orders are violative of the principles of the natural justice. The petitioners ought to have been afforded opportunity of hearing as the cancellation of grant of higher time pay scale carries civil consequences. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.9.2018 and 7.12.2018 so far it relates to the petitioners are quashed, as the aforesaid orders have been issued without following the principle of natural justice. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh orders in accordance with law without being prejudice to the previous impugned orders.