IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14036 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SABOORA P., FIRST GRADE DRAFTSMAN, N.H.DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, O/O. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA, BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.507, THRISSUR-680 020. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 14036/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.4.08 BY R2. P2. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.25.3.06. P3. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.25.3.06. P4. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE OBJECTION BY R3. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 23518/2008 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W..A.NO.1965/09 OF THIS COURT. P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.5.2011 BY R4. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 14036 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a 1st Grade Draftsman in the Public Works Department. The petitioner was given higher grades on completion of the requisite number of years of service. The second higher grade granted to the petitioner has been sought to be revised to the detriment of the petitioner, is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing Ext.P4 objection raised by the 3rd respondent against the grant of Rs. 11070-18450 to the Petitioner as the second time bound higher grade as it is illegal, arbitrary and void; ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7 order No.E1/40/2002 dated 2.5.2011 issued by the 4th respondent as it is arbitrary, illegal and void. iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to continue to pay salary the scale of pay of Rs. 11070-18450 and other benefits to the Petitioner based on the said scale; iv) to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs. 11070-18450 with effect from 1.3.2006 as second time bound higher grade;” 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that before issuing the impugned order revising the higher grade already granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, on 25.5.2011, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the petitioner had been given a hearing before cancellation of his higher grade. w.p.c.14036/11 2 Today the learned Government Pleader submits that although the petitioner was not given a notice or hearing, at the time of granting higher grade, the petitioner had submitted an undertaking to the effect that if there is any mistake in the fixation of pay, the same is liable to be revised accordingly. 3. I am of opinion that even to decide whether there is a mistake itself, the petitioner is entitled to a notice and hearing insofar as the refixation of pay involves civil consequences to the petitioner. Since it is admitted that before passing the order impugned in this writ petition the petitioner has not been heard, the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. I do so. The respondents shall see that fresh orders are passed in accordance with law, after issuing a notice to the petitioner detailing the reasons for the proposed refixation and affording the petitioner an opportunity to file objections and of hearing as well. It would be open to the petitioner to produce all documents, which, according to the petitioner, would support the petitioner's case, the applicability of which, shall also be considered by the respondents. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.14036/11 3