Satyananda Muduli and 3 ors. Vs. State of Orissa and 6 ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....taken and order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. in view of the aforesaid clear position and after going through the impugned order, this court finds that there is some force in the contentions raised. clause 7 of the orissa public distribution system (control) order, 2002 reveals that an opportunity for stating the case should be given. even otherwise in consonance with the principle of natural justice the said requirement is inbuilt. annexure-3 series does not reveal that any such opportunity was given. the order also does not indicate the reasons for cancellation. non-fulfilment of such requirement makes the orders at annexure-3 series vulnerable in the eye of law. therefore, this court has no hesitation to set aside annexure-3 series.....

Judgment:
ORDER

A.S. Naidu, J.

1. Heard Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate.

2. The grievance of the petitioners who were appointed as Sub-wholesaler licensee for the year 2005-06 under the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 is that though there is no provision for renew of licence periodically, the authorities have acted illegally and with material irregularity in renewing the licence for a short period.

3. Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate, submits that the petitioners have not filed any applications for renewal of their licences.

The statement made by the learned Counsel for the State is found to be not correct specially in view of the fact that in the letter dated 1.7.2005 issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal, vide Annexure-3, refers to an application filed for renewal of S.K. Oil Sub-wholesale licence for the year 2005-06.

4. The further grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that action has been taken and order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid clear position and after going through the impugned order, this Court finds that there is some force in the contentions raised. Clause 7 of the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 reveals that an opportunity for stating the case should be given. Even otherwise in consonance with the principle of natural justice the said requirement is inbuilt. Annexure-3 series does not reveal that any such opportunity was given. The order also does not indicate the reasons for cancellation. Non-fulfilment of such requirement makes the orders at Annexure-3 series vulnerable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside Annexure-3 series and remit the matter back the concerned authorities with an observation that the authorities shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after observing all paraphernalia dispose of the proceeding by a reasoned order.

This order shall be communicated to the concerned authorities at the cost of the petitioners. Requisites shall be filed within seven days.