Judgment:
Madam, J.
1. The matter has been taken up on the second stay application moved by the learned counsel for the petition. Since the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the second stay petition are touching upon the merits of the case, and the matter has been heard at length and it was thought proper to hear the arguments finally on the writ petition itself instead of keeping it pending as the writ petition pertains to the year 1998.
2. The first contention which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no prescription of different pay scales in the Rules. Second argument is that the impugned order has been passed retrospectively to the disadvantage of the petitioner particularly when the Rules do not permit retrospective effect to the matter.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has laidemphasis on the contentions made especially in para 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the writpetition. He contended that the qualification which was prescribed for appointmentto the post of Chemical Assistant is B.Sc. (Chemistry) and since the petitioner fulfilledthe eligibility criteria, and therefore he was given appointment on the said post, afterhis due selection and was also confirmed on the said post with effect from 8.8.91 videorder dated 5th October, 1991 (Ann. 3). The pay-scale in which the petitioner wasearlier placed, was Rs. 520-925 PS No. 9 Vide order dated 13.5.1986 (Ann. 2), his payscale was revised to Rs. 625-15-1120, which was further revised to Rs. 1400-2600 andhe was getting his salary as per the revised scale till date which cannot be retrospectively reduced to the tune of pay scale No.9 vide Annexure-4 dated 8.11.96. Hence theimpugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. In reply to the writ petition, it has been contended that in the year 1984, the respondents had reduced the pay scale of similarly situated persons and they challenged the said reduction by way of writ petition Nos. 1267/84/1268/84, 1269/84 and 1274/84 filed by Munni Raj, Prem Singh, Mahendra Singh and Rameshwar Tiwari respectively. The writ petitions were allowed and the orders reducing the pay scale from Rs. 625-1125 to 520-925 was quashed vide orders dated 5.11.92 and 1.9.94 respectively.
5. Against the aforesaid orders, DB Special Appeal was preferred by the State Government vide Appeal No. 40/94 and the same was also dismissed vide orders of the Division Bench dated 27.2.1995. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench in the matter of Vijay Singh Rajpurohil in his Special Appeal No. 643/1992 wherein this Court held that after lapse of constant long period the reduction of pay scale is unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The State went in appeal before the Apex Court vide Appeal No. 16732/96 arising out of SLP (C) No. 1998 (8) of 1995, which was dismissed confirming the orders of the SB and Division Bench of this Court. The said findings, in my view are obiter on the State-respondent and it is not permissible for the respondents to plead to the contrary or to take a different view of the matter in the instant case. My observations also find support from the observations of the Apex Court in the following matters:-
(1999 (Supp.) (3) SCC 528), (1) and Jaipal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1988 (3) SCC 354),
6. In the back drop of above events, I am of the view that the benefit, which was extended to the petitioner, was withdrawn after long spell of time and lapse of more than 10 years and it will be wholly unjust, unfair and improper to withdraw the same and in my view, it is a sorry state of affairs that inspite of long legal battle in similar matters, the respondents have withdrawn earlier order dated 8.11.96 in the instant case which is contrary to the benefit extended in case of all similarly situated persons, whereas the same had not been done for the sake of maintaining parity and equality with all similarly placed incumbents.
7. I am also fortified in my observations from the view taken by the Apex Court in the matter of L.N. Kesri v. Union of India, 1975 (3) SCC 1 and also in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 (SC) 2480 (4).
8. In the matter of L.N. Kesri v. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:-
'The respondents were confirmed in the scale of Rs. 110- 180. The appellants having fixed the scale and confirmed the respondentscould not reduce the scale without giving any opportunity to the respondents to be heard. Furthermore, the respondents on confirmation became entitled to rights to the post and to the scale of pay fixed by the Board.'
9. In that case, the only question which arose for consideration by the apex court was as to whether the impugned order by which the employer department had directed reduction in pay scale of the petitioner was justified, as that had been done without affording opportunity of hearing being contrary to natural justice.
10. It was held that the respondents/employees on confirmation became entitled to rights to the post and so also to the scale of pay fixed by the Board. The High Court had thus rightly set aside the order (impugned). The appeals preferred by the appellants- Railways were dismissed accordingly.
11. In Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India (supra) the Apex Court observed as under:-
'The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequencesbut he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against thereduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before hispay was reduced by the department and the order came to be madebehind his back without following any procedure known to law.There, has, thus, been flagrant violation of the principles of naturaljustice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial losswithout being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such orderwhich has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequencesshould be passed without putting the concerned to notice and givinghim a hearing in the matter. Since that was not done, the order(memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before theTribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant.'
12. In the instant case, the respondents have not rendered any satisfactory explanation in directing reduction of pay scale as admissible to the petitioner by the impugned order under challenge. The stand taken by respondents is altogether unsustainable and even from the perusal of the reply filed by the State it is apparent that respondents have rather made admissions regarding admissibility of benefit to the similarly placed persons like the petitioner while they have given no satisfactory explanation for denying the admissibility of similar benefit to the petitioner.
13. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned action of the respondents vide Order dated 8.11.96 (Ann. 4) in reducing pay scale of the petitioner from pay scale No. 11 to 9 is quashed and set aside, being unsustainable. No order as to costs.