1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1704/2002. : : Banwari Lal Saini & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 1.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioners. Mr. R. P. Singh for Mr. J. K. Singhi for the respondent (s). 1. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 21.8.2001. 2. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Member Secretary and Executive Officer of Jhunjhunu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd has withdrawn the earlier order passed by him on 18.7.2001 by which petitioners were granted benefit of regular pay scale, dearness allowance and other benefits. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that aforesaid order was withdrawn on the instructions of Collector, but neither the District Collector nor the Executive Officer of the 2 Bank has served any notice to the petitioners nor provided any opportunity of hearing to them. It is contended that petitioners are discharging the duties of Vyavasthapak since 1988 and they are being paid only Rs.541/- per month for last 14 years. Direction for their regularization, was passed on the basis of resolution of the Board of Directors, which in turn was based on recommendation of Loan Supervisor and Legal Adviser and also as per the recommendation of Selection Committee. The impugned order dated 21.8.2001 be therefore quashed and set aside. 4. Shri R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that order dated 18.7.2001 was passed by Executive Officer in his personal capacity. This order was subjected to writ petition namely; SB Civil Writ Petition No.3220/1999 : Jhunjhunu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Virendra Singh & Anr. It was submitted that when this fact came to notice of District Collector, who as administrator of the Bank directed for withdrawal of the order dated 18.7.2008. 3 5. Consideration of arguments aforesaid and perusal of impugned order clearly show that petitioners came to acquire a right to receive salary in the regular pay scale pursuant to order dated 18.7.2001. It cannot be accepted that said order was passed arbitrarily or without due process of law. This order would show that it was passed pursuant to resolution of Board of Director, which was based on recommendation of Selection Committee as also the recommendation of Loan Supervisor and Legal Adviser. If at all the District Collector wanted to withdraw/revoke the said order, it was obligatory upon him to provide to the petitioners opportunity of hearing. It is not shown that any such opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. Mere pendency of SB Civil Writ Petition No.3220/99 cannot be a reason to give a complete go by to the principles of natural justice. I see no reason for non-providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If the District Collector was not right in holding that petitioner could not be provided regular pay scale, although independently if the petitioners were working as back for last so many years. Action of the respondents in not paying regular pay scale and making salary on consolidated basis cannot be justified. 4 In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.8.2001 passed by Member Secretary & Executive Officer of the Bank is quashed and set aside. Petitioners would be entitled to consequential benefits. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.38.