IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THUSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26027 of 2001 Between: K. Muthanna ……PETITIONER(S) a n d The APSRTC rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26027 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner herein is an employee/Black Smith of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and the point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the order dated 13.03.2000 of the Depot Manager, Bheemgal Depot i.e. the third respondent herein reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.1800-55-2515-70-3215-75-3365 to Rs.1705-55-2145-65-2600-70-3300 is valid. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner is admittedly an employee of the APSRTC and he was at the relevant time Hammerman/Cleaner and by an order dated 10.02.1995 the Regional Manager, Nizamabad of APSRTC i.e. the second respondent herein promoted the petitioner along with four others as Black Smith and posted him to Bheemgal Depot of APSRTC. In the said promotion order, the petitioner’s scale in the promoted post was mentioned as Rs.1800-55-2515-70-3215-75- 3365. Later on, by the impugned order dated 13.03.2000, which is roughly five years later, the third respondent reduced the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.1800-55-2515-70-3215-75-3365 to Rs.1705-55-2145-65-2600-70-3300 on the ground that the latter pay scale was the correct pay scale in which the petitioner should draw his emoluments and directed that the petitioner should draw his emoluments in the said latter scale. In the same order the third respondent has also made it clear that from 22.02.1995 to 30.09.1999 the petitioner in the higher scale of pay which was granted to him has drawn an amount of Rs.7,671.56 ps as excess salary and directed that the same should be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 24 monthly instalments of Rs.320/- each. 3. The petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the above order dated 13.03.2000 on the ground that before passing the said order, the third respondent did not give him any opportunity and in fact as per the rules he is eligible for drawing the original scale of pay which is mentioned in the promotion order. The plea of the petitioner is had he been given an opportunity he would have put forward his case and would have successfully shown that he is entitled to scale shown in the promotion order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments in support of the petitioner’s case on the above lines. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC on the other hand pointed out that under the promotion order the petitioner was given by mistake a higher scale which was not meant for Black Smiths and that the lower scale mentioned in the impugned order is the correct scale and therefore the impugned order may not be said to be bad and no notice is also necessary. 5. The APSRTC did not file any counter showing what are the correct pay scales of the Black Smith and for whom the scales mentioned in the promotion order are meant. No record is also placed before this Court regarding the scales applicable to Black Smiths and Hammermen and other categories in that trade. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed behind his back without giving him any opportunity. The APSRTC did not file any record to show that an opportunity was given to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice to him and calling upon his explanation or his version in the matter. It is well settled that an order reducing the scale of an employee of APSRTC which is a Corporation owned by the Government would be clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice as such an order would result in monetary loss to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court given in SANTOKH SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[1] in support of his contention that the impugned order cannot be said to be valid for violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as petitioner was not given any notice before reducing the scale. A perusal of this decision supports the contention of the petitioner’s counsel. Thus, as pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel in the absence of any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order can be said to be vitiated. 6. The learned counsel for the APSRTC as already mentioned supra could not show any circumstance under which the impugned order can be said to be valid and as to how the APSRTC is also justified in dispensing with the rules of natural justice in a case like this. In the above circumstances and in the absence of any record to show that the petitioner was given notice before passing the impugned order was passed, I am of the opinion that the same should be set aside by giving liberty to the APSRTC to initiate action afresh to recover any excess payments made to the petitioner by giving him due opportunity to present his case. It may also be noted that in this writ petition, an interim stay of recovery of any amount pursuant to the impugned order was already granted on 19.04.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.32969 of 2001 and that interim stay is still in force. Hence, this interim order granting stay would show that nothing was recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. 7. The point is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the APSRTC authorities shall be at liberty to take action afresh by giving due notice to the petitioner and take steps to recover the excess amount, if any, paid to him in case it is entitled to do so. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that some amounts might have been recovered from the petitioner and in case any amounts are already recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted from the amounts to be recovered from the petitioner in case it is found that petitioner has drawn excess pay. No costs. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 9th December 2010 CVRK [1] 2002 (5) SLR 650