S.B.C.W.P.NO. 1917/96 - B.M.Nathani vs. J.V.V.N.Ltd.JOdhpur & Anr. Order dt: 17/11/08 1/4 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1917/96 (B.M.Nathani vs. J.V.V.N.Ltd.JOdhpur & Anr.) DATE OF ORDER : 17/11/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Vijay Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner claims removal of pay anomaly qua one Mr.Shahid Raza. Though the order communicated to the petitioner Annex.9 dated 12/4/1996 did not assign any reason for pay anomaly between these two persons, vide Annex.R/1 dated 24/7/97 the Assistant Secretary (Rules) gave the following two reasons for the said pay anomaly:- “1. The step up of pay cannot be allowed between a direct recruitee and promotee at any stage. 2. In fixation of pay scales effective from 1.4.74 two service increments were allowed to junior in comparison to one service increment to the senior employee as such the difference in pay has arisen and thus it is not a case of pay anomaly.” S.B.C.W.P.NO. 1917/96 - B.M.Nathani vs. J.V.V.N.Ltd.JOdhpur & Anr. Order dt: 17/11/08 2/4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Vijay Mehta submits that in view of para no.9 of the writ petition having been admitted by the respondents in which petitioner has categorically stated that had the petitioner been promoted on 26.4.95 instead of 11.4.77 on the post of Accountant his pay would have been fixed at Rs.925/- i.e.equal to that of Shri Raza, whereas on that day i.e. 26/4/85 his pay was at Rs.900/- in the pay scale of Rs.720-1340 and that of Mr.Raza was Rs.925/-. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since petitioner was a direct recruitee on the post of UDC, whereas, Mr. Raza was promotee, therefore, on account of his promotion he got two increments and this resulted in the anomaly of the pay scale. 5. Be that as it may, since Annex.9 dated 12/4/1996 as well as Annex.R/1 dated 24/7/97 were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which of course resulted in the pay scale qua him, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have passed such order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since, admittedly, this was not done, such orders are required to be set aside. S.B.C.W.P.NO. 1917/96 - B.M.Nathani vs. J.V.V.N.Ltd.JOdhpur & Anr. Order dt: 17/11/08 3/4 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annex.9 dated 12/4/1996 and Annex.R/1 dated 24/7/1997 are set aside and respondent no.2 – F.A.& C.O.A, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur is directed to consider the case of petitioner afresh and passed fresh orders after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner in this regard is directed to appear before the said authority on 15/12/2008. It is expected that said authority shall pass such fresh order within a period of three months from today. It is needless to add that if the request of petitioner is accepted, he will be entitled to consequential benefits. If, however, such request is not accepted, the respondent no.2 or the competent authority as the case may be, shall pass speaking order giving details and basis of his order. In case petitioner is further aggrieved of the said order, he will be at liberty to file fresh writ petition in the matter. 7. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no. s-7 S.B.C.W.P.NO. 1917/96 - B.M.Nathani vs. J.V.V.N.Ltd.JOdhpur & Anr. Order dt: 17/11/08 4/4 baweja/-