Civil Writ Petition No.17988 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17988 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: September 21, 2011 Balwant Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Housing Board Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 6.6.1989, 17.8.1990 and 4.7.1991(Annexures P-5, P-7 and P-9 respectively). The benefit of pay fixation and grant of increment, has been withdrawn through the impugned orders. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the office of Chief Project Officer, Command Area Development Authority, Rohtak on 8.9.1976. He continued to work as such till 6.12.1982, where he was drawing pay scale of ` 480/- plus allowances. The petitioner was selected as a Civil Writ Petition No.17988 of 1991 -2- Clerk in Haryana Housing Board, where he joined on 7.12.1982 in the pay scale of `400-660/- with the starting salary of `400/- per month plus allowances. The petitioner submitted a representation on 8.12.1982 for determining his seniority as well as for his pay fixation as per the Rules. The petitioner filed several representations regarding his pay fixation. Respondent No.1, ultimately, vide its order dated 4.7.1984 sanctioned the grant of benefit of past service rendered by the petitioner in the office of Chief Project Officer, Command Area Development Authority, Rohtak, from 8.9.1976 to 6.12.1982 for the purpose of fixation of pay. It was specifically ordered that the pay of the petitioner was to be fixed accordingly. Thereafter, order was passed on 31.1.1985 to fix the pay of petitioner at `480/- w.e.f. 7.12.1982. Next increment was to become due on 1.12.1983. This was so done by giving the benefit of past service. Soon thereafter, respondent No.2 issued another letter on 16.2.1985 in supersession of its earlier order, wherein pay of the petitioner was initially fixed at `480/-. The petitioner was taken aback when he received this communication whereby his pay was fixed at `460/- as on 7.12.1982. This was in violation of the earlier order passed. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted a representation. The respondents then issued another Civil Writ Petition No.17988 of 1991 -3- letter on 17.8.1991 fixing the initial pay of the petitioner at `460/- as on 7.9.1982 and the date of next increment being 1.9.1983. It was ordered that the petitioner had no claim for selection grade, which he was enjoying in his parent department. The petitioner again represented against this order. The petitioner finally has approached this Court through the present writ petition to impugn these orders of his pay fixation. The petitioner primarily contends that this order could not have been passed without following the principle of natural justice. It is further urged that the earlier order was passed by the Chief Administrator, whereas subsequent order superseding the same was passed by the Executive Engineer, which is without jurisdiction and authority. Written statement is filed stating that no legal rights of the petitioner have been violated. The respondents have justified the impugned orders. It is stated that the petitioner was granted higher pay scale by mistake and when it was detected, the matter was got re-examined. It is also pointed out that for grant of benefit of selection grade, he was to compete with his counterparts in the Board. Thus, the pay- scale of the petitioner was ordered to be re-fixed in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the parties. Even if it was a mistake that pay scale of the Civil Writ Petition No.17988 of 1991 -4- petitioner was fixed, but that gave him certain right to the petitioner. The accrued rights could be taken away only by following principle of natural justice. Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before withdrawing the order. The respondents would have also considered this fact whether the earlier order, which was passed by the Chief Administrator, could be withdrawn by the Executive Engineer. It is only the competent authority under the law, which can pass such an order. In view of this, the impugned orders may not be sustainable. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the respondents to reconsider the issue after serving a show cause notice to the petitioner disclosing the reasons for which the scale granted was required to be withdrawn. The respondents would also see whether the Executive Engineer can competently pass this order withdrawing the scale, which was earlier granted by the Chief Administrator. The petitioner may not be released any benefit by virtue of this order. Once the respondents take appropriate decision after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, the necessary consequences would follow. If the petitioner is held entitled to the pay scale earlier granted, the arrears due to him shall be released. The right of the petitioner to claim interest on that may also be considered. If on the other hand, the respondents decide Civil Writ Petition No.17988 of 1991 -5- not to grant the revised pay scale earlier granted, then the necessary consequences would follow accordingly. Let the necessary exercise be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. September 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE