tion No 320 of 1987
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Jitender Sharma for the Petitioners
Kepil Sibal Ms Tamali Das Gupta Ms J Wad and Mr RVenkataramani NP for the Respondent
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by THOMMENJ
This petition has been filed by the DTC Workers  Union and some its members
The main relief sought by them as contained in prayer a reads Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Direction to the respondent the Delhi Transport Corporation to implement wef 1186 the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission as approved by the Government of India to the Central Government employees as per the undertakings gives to its employees vide Office Order NOPLD IX4658310589 dated 1591983 and DGMIR8493 dated 721984 The petitioners as well as the respondent the Delhi Transport Corporation rely heavily upon the Office Order No DGMIR8490 dated 721984 issued by the Deputy General Manager of the respondent Corporation although they differ in their construction of what it contains
We shall therefore read the whole Order 986  
Before Interim Relief was announced by the Central Government for its employees to be paid wef 1683 the Wage Group constituted by the Government of India for considering the demand regarding revision of pay scales of the employees of the Delhi Transport Corporation gave its report recommending revision of pay scales of all the Class III  IV employees as an interim measure pending receipt of Fourth Pay Commission report
Thus the revised scales themselves were in the shape of an interim relief
As interim relief was announced by the Government for its employees almost simultaneously some unions approached the Management opposing the introduction of new scales and asking for the interim relief as at the Government rates
It was explained to them that the revised scales have a greater in built advantage as the benefit in some cases go even over hundred rupees while interim relief for workers was fifty to seventy rupees
However an option was given vide circular No
PLD IX4658310589 dated 15983 to the employees of the Corporation either to avail the benefit of interim relief and retain the old pay scales or to avail the benefit of the revised pay scales
In reference to the clarification sought by the Unions it was made absolutely clear beyond any ambiguity to the employees that 1 there is absolutely no intention to de link the DTC from the Central Government pay structure and DA pattern arbitrarily or unilaterally ii if the Fourth Pay Commission granted any further interim relief or benefit before the final report such benefit will be available to the DTC employees iii the differential in the head start now given in the pay scales will be maintained even while implementing the scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission and iv the payscales recommended by the Working Group would be enforceable for a period of four year or the receipt of report of the Commission whichever is earlier
It has already been made amply clear that differential in head start given in the revised pay scales will be maintained even while implementing the scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission
In fixation of pay in the scales to be recommended by the Foruth Pay Commission the employees coming over to the revised scales of pay will be given due benefit of Central Government Interim Relief so as to ensure that they are not at any disadvantage because of having opted for the revised scales now
For instance if the 987 pay of an individual in the pay scale of Rs260 400 drawing a basic pay of Rs260 per month who had opted for interim Relief at Central Government rates is fixed at Rs310 pm by adding Rs50 as Interim Relief a Basic Pay of Rs260 whereas the pay of an employee who has opted for corresponding revised pay scale of Rs284 440 and is drawing Basic pay of Rs284 pm will be fixed at Rs334 pm by adding Rs50 to his Basic Pay of Rs284
In this connection our circular NoPLD IX465 83 dated 20993 referees
It has been clearly shown in the above illustrations as to how the revised pay scales will be beneficial to the employees
It is opted that the employees will not be mislead now by any such interpretation which is being placed on the Ministry of Finance s OM of 28th November 1983
 Referring to the concept of head start mentioned in the Order Mr Jitender Sharma appearing for the petitioners submits that it being the intention of the Corporation to protect the interim relief granted to the employees not withstanding the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission the employees are entitled to the interim relief referred to as the head start in addition to the pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission In other words according to MrSharma the employees will be entitled not only to the new pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission but more in the shape of interim reliefs which they had enjoyed during the period of the interregnum between their original pay scale and the new payscale
Mr Kapil Sibal appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that all that the Order dated 721984 has intended to state is that the head start in the form of interim relief will not deprive the employees of the full benefits of either the revised interim pay scale ie the scale as revised during the interregnum or the new pay scale subsequently introduced as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission
The employees had the option either to accept the additional payment in the nature of an interim relief in the sum of Rs50 or Rs70 as the case may be or the revised interim pay scale which was itself in the nature of an interim relief pending adoption of the new scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission
But once the employees are placed on the scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission all the reliefs which they had earlier received would merge into the new scale and they would have no entitlement to any 988 additional payment
Any payment in addition to what the Fourth Pay Commission recommended would place the employees of the Corporation at an undue advantage in comparison to the employees of the Government in Corresponding grades
Any such deferential treatment counsel points out will be discriminatory and therefore unsustainable
Mr Sharma however refers to the scales of pay relating to the category of conductors tailorscompositors etc
Their scale of pay prior to June 1983 was Rs260 6 290 EB 6 326 EB 8 390 10 400
A revised interim scale was introduced on 161983
This scale was Rs284 8 340 10 440
On 1186 a new scale was introduced on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission
That scale is Rs950 20 1150 EB 25 1500
This shows that prior to 111986 an employee on the scale of Rs260 400 as on 3151983 had the option either to remain on that scale and draw an additional allowance or be placed on the revised interim scale of Rs284 440 
On 111986 all employees in the category of conductors etc came on the scale of Rs950 1500 whether or not prior to that date they had in exercise of their option remained on the original scale or Rs260 400 with the additional allowances or been placed on the revised interim scale Rs284 440
According to Mr Sharma the head start promised by the Corporation means the additional allowances or revised scales recieved by the employees during the interregnum and such benefits have to be super imposed over the new scale of Rs950 1500
He further submits insofar as none of the employees of the Corporation had opted to remain on the original scale with the additional allowances but had come on the revised interim pay scale all the employees brought on the new pay scales on 1186 are entitled to be fitted with reference to the total emoluments drawn on the revised interim scale
A careful reading of the Order dated 721984 shows that certain interim benefits were granted to the employees preceding the introduction of the new pay scale on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay commission
These benefits which were either in the nature of an additional payment or a revised interim pay scale were intended to cover the period preceding the introduction of the regular pay scale which came into effect on 1186
The Order further shows that the Corporation was to carry the same pay structure and DA pattern as in the case of the Government employees in the corresponding categories
All benefits granted by the Fourth Pay Commission in the nature of interim reliefs were also to be made available to the 989 Corporation employees
The interim reliefs granted by the Corporation in the nature of what is imprecisely referred to as head start were to be maintained in implementing the scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission
The figures worked out in the penultimate paragraph of the Report indicate that whether the employees were retained on the original pay scale with the additional emoluments by way of interim relief or they had as in the instant case opted for the revised interim scale they should suffer no loss by reason of the option they hadexercised
But the overriding consideration behind the Other dated 721984 is that as in the case of all Government employees so in the case of the Corporation employees the new scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission should be fully implemented
What ever may be the amounts actually payable in terms of the interim reliefs the employees of the Corporation should neither be paid less nor more than the Government employees in the corresponding categories
This means that all employees whether retained on the original pay scale or placed on the revised interim pay scale during the period preceding 1186 will be placed on the pay scale adopted as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission in such a way that they will be fitted exactly in positions corresponding to their positions on the earlier pay scales
But the corresponding positions in the new pay scales will naturally carry better emoluments so as to maintain parity with the Government employees in like categories
In the circumstances we have no doubt that the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission will be fully implemendted in terms thereof
Mr Kapil Sibal appearing for the Corporation assures us that it will be so done
Mr Sibal s submission is recorded
In the circumstances no further order is required
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of
No costs
RNJ Pentition disposed of


Summary:
Under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act 1973 Notification No HMA 59 MCS 76 dated 1711977 was issued by the State Government declaring an extent of one acre in the city of Bangalore as slum area 
After considering the objections another notification dated 30121977 was issued under Section 111 of the Act declaring the entire land as slum clearance area 
However on January 20 1981 the Government issued notification under Section 31 cancelling the earlier notification dated 3121977 and re declaring an extent of 14 12 guntas only as slum area 
The appellants an Association representing the interest of slum dwellers and a resident of the area challenged notification dated 2011981 on the ground that it was in violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the slum dwellers affected by the Government s action were not given an opportunity of being heard and were denied equality since a major part of the slum area has been excluded from the operation of the scheme
A Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the notification and that even on merits there was no case
The Division Bench agreed on the question of locus standi but did not go into the merits
975 The appellants filed an appeal by special leave before this Court contending that the High Court had erred in holding that the petitioners had no locus standi that in view of the purpose of the legislation and the scheme contemplated thereunder once action had been taken declaring a larger area as slum clearance area  any change thereafter which directly affected the slum dwellers could not be taken without giving the affected persons an opportunity of being heard and there was therefore clear violation of the principle of natural justice and that there was no specific provision under the statute enabling the Government to rescind the notification and even assuming that it existed there was no proper exercise of the power
On behalf of Respondent No 3 it was submitted that there was no need to hear the owners or occupiers at the stage of issuing notification under Section 31 of the Act and Section 11 did not confer any statutory right on the occupiers and that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act the power to withdraw or rescind the notification was inherent and the authority who was empowered to issue the notification was entitled to rescind the same
The State adopted the contentions of Respondents No 3
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1 1
Where a member of the public acting bona fide moves the Court for enforcement of a fundamental right on behalf of a person or class of persons who on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach the Court for relief such member of the public may move the Court even by just writing a letter
979E Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India  Ors
   relied on
section P Gupta vs Union of India 19821 2 SCR 365 Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 Suppl
2 SCR 51 referred to 12
The first appellant Association represents the interests of the slum dwellers and the second appellant himself is one of the residents in the area
The action of the Government affects a class of persons and if that group of persons is represented by the Association they have a right to be heard in the matter
Even a public interest litigation would lie in such a situation
Therefore the High Court was wrong in concluding that appellants were incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court979D F 976 21
What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for that purpose
It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard but on the other hand the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding that the audi alteram partem rule could be imported
1982F 22
It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers
If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made
982E 23
When a declaration is made under Section 3 and a further declaration is made under Section 11 the inhabitants of the areas are affected and any further action in relation to the area which is declared to be slum clearance area  without affording such persons an opportunity of being heard would prejudicially affect their rights
The right to be heard in the matter has been acquired by the earlier action of the authority in considering the area for the purpose of the scheme
This is clear from the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11 of the Act
When any alteration is sought to be made in the original scheme it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to give an opportunity to the persons who had been affected by the earlier order and required to adopt a certain course of action
983D E 24
It is true that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it and it is always open to the Government to rescind the notification
980B State of Kerala vs K G Madhavan Pillai   State of MP vs VP Sharma 19663 SCR557 Lt Governor of HP vs Sri Avinash Sharma    Lachmi Narain vs Union of India   State of Bihar vs D N Ganguly  Ors   and Kamia Prasad Khetan vs Union of India   referred to
But when a notification is made rescinding the earlier notifications without hearing the affected parties it is clear violation of the principles of natural justice
Such action in exercise of the implied 977 power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised subject to the like conditions within the scope of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act
983F In the circumstances the notification dated 2011981 is liable to be quashed
It shall be open to the Government to proceed after affording the slum dwellers an opportunity of being heard on the basis of the earlier notifications that were in force
983F G