IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4595 of 2003 MANIK SAH & ORS Versus THE BIHAR STATE AGRI.MKT.BOARD ----------- 6 12.5.2009 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Administrator, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board. Petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees on different posts. They came to this Court in CWJC No. 4768 of 1990 and analogous cases with a claim for regularization. This Court by its order dated 22.6.1994, while declining to grant any positive relief on the issue of regularization except directing that the petitioners should also be considered in accordance with law as and when regular appointments are made, nonetheless directed that so long as they worked on daily rated, they were entitled in the minimum of the pay scale along with other admissible allowances. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Secretary of the Agriculture Marketing Committee, Begusarai then passed appropriate orders on 3.12.1994 and 9.8.2002 granting the minimum pay scale with the admissible allowance. This was in pursuance of the general body decision of the Bihar State Agricultural 2 Produce Market Committee, Begusarai. He submits that this was only in the implementation of the order of the writ Court as noticed above. By the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 the benefit granted by the aforesaid orders dated 3.12.1994 and 9.8.2002 has been withdrawn. This it was submitted was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners who are sought to be visited with the adverse consequences were not given any opportunity to satisfy the respondents that the general body had taken a correct decision in light of certain orders of this Court. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that by the orders dated 3.12.1994 and 9.8.2002 the petitioners were granted benefit in excess. It is however fairly conceded that the counter affidavit is completely silent and does not deal with the recitals in the orders granting the benefit that it was based on a decision of the general body. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that the orders dated 3.12.1994 and 9.8.2002 itself states that it was the minimum of the pay scale with admissible allowance which was being given. This is what the writ Court had directed. 3 Additionally, the order granting the benefit itself refers to the decision of the general body in that regard after application of mind. While there can be no objection to the stand of the respondents from Clause (v) of the order dated 3.12.1994 that the benefit could be withdrawn, if found to be not inconsonance with law but before a determination was done that the benefit was wrongly given, the respondents were required to notice the petitioners and hear them. They could not assume the role of Judge and executioner simultaneously. Whether it be the recital in the orders granting the benefit based on a general body decision and non answerability of the same in the counter affidavit or the non compliance of the principles of natural justice by the respondents before passing the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 visiting the petitioners with adverse consequence, the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 is not sustainable in either event. It is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. If the respondent proposes to proceed in terms of Clause (v) of the order dated 3.12.1994 likewise incorporated in the order dated 9.8.2002, they can be permitted to do so strictly in accordance with law after furnishing due materials to the petitioners with 4 opportunity to rebut the same. A.kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)