SBCWP No.527/1998 – Bajrang Singh Bhati v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order: 06.04.2009 1 of 2 S.B.C.W.P. No.527/1998 Bajrang Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan & others Date of Order: 06th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr S.D. Vyas, for the petitioner Mr I.S. Pareek, Addl. Government counsel for the respondents None present for the respondent-Bank By an order dated 18th August, 1994, the respondent-Bank stepped up pay of the petitioner in view of the fact that he was getting pay less than Shri Amar Singh, Assistant Manager despite being senior. By the order impugned dated 26th November, 1997, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank withdrew the stepping up of pay made on 18th August, 1994 on the count that a higher start in pay was given to Shri Amar Singh being having certain additional qualification, thus, the petitioner was not entitled for stepping up of pay as per provisions of rule 32 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was throughout senior than Shri Amar Singh and therefore, after taking into consideration all relevant aspects his pay was stepped up by the competent authority under the order dated 18th August, 1994 but the same was withdrawn by the respondents, without giving any notice to do so. A reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon judgment of SBCWP No.527/1998 – Bajrang Singh Bhati v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order: 06.04.2009 2 of 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur v. L.N. Kashri and others, AIR 1974 SC 1889, wherein too the pay scale granted was reduced without giving any opportunity to the employee concerned for being heard and that was held bad being in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the judgment aforesaid, before withdrawal of a pay scale granted to an employee, opportunity of hearing must be given. In the present case too, before withdrawing benefit of stepping up no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The respondents, while withdrawing benefit of stepping up, also made an order for effecting recovery from the petitioner for the payment said to be made in excess. The withdrawal of benefit of stepping up as well as order to make recovery, both are illegal, being in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned Annx.4 dated 26th November, 1997 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank is quashed. Costs made easy. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma