CW 5022/95 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5022/1995 Gendilal Jain Versus Harish Chandra Mathur Raj. State Institute of Public Admn. & Anr. Date of Order ::: 13/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Virendra Lodha ) Mr. Vinod Goyal ) for petitioner Mr. OP Pareek for Mr. JK Singhi, for respondents Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10 whereby earlier order dt.23/11/93 pursuant to which, petitioner was fixed in revised pay scale while treating him to be regularly appointed as Stenographer on 07/11/73, was cancelled on the premise that department of personnel has not consented and approved decision of respondents- Institute in implementing R.7(7) of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 (“Rules, 1957”). Petitioner initially joined service as Lower Division Clerk on being appointed vide order dt.01/09/65 in Department of Agriculture and after having qualified requisite examination conducted by Bhasha Vibhag, was re- designated as LDC-cum-Steno Typist w.e.f. 07/11/73 in pay scale of Rs.90-110/- and was further promoted as UDC. However vide order dt.19/11/76 his services were transferred from CW 5022/95 //2// agriculture department to the respondent Institute on the post of UDC-cum-Steno; and his services came to be regularised w.e.f. 04/07/79 and accordingly was appointed as Stenographer Gr.II vide order dt.04/10/80 (Ann.1) passed in terms of notification dt. 15/03/78 - pursuant to which he held requisite qualification & eligibility to hold post of Stenographer Gr.II, and vide subsequent order dt.22/08/81 (Ann.2), corrigendum was issued to order dt.04/10/80 (ann.1) treating him duly regularised on appointment as Stenographer w.e.f. 04/09/79 vice 04/07/79 & was confirmed as Steno Gr.II vide order dt.07/01/81 (Ann.3). However, respondents in exercise of powers U/r 7(7) of Rules, 1957 made revision of pay scale treating petitioner to be in regular cadre of Stenographer Gr.II w.e.f. 07/11/73 vide order dt.17/11/93 endorsed vide No.13403 dt.23/11/93 (Ann.9) and thereafter it appears that matter was sent to the department of personnel, Government of Rajasthan whereby it was opined that order dt. 23/11/93 (Ann.9) is not in consonance with R.7(7) of Rules, 1957 and taking note whereof, order (Ann.9) whereby his fixation was revised from time to time was cancelled vide order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10). This Court vide order dt.13/11/95 while CW 5022/95 //3// admitting the petition, stayed operation of order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10), by virtue whereof, order impugned (Ann.10) was never given effect to and pendente petition, an order was passed by respondents on 21/08/2000 cancelling order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10) impugned subject to final outcome of writ petition. As informed, petitioner has retired from service on superannuation in July, 2002 pendente petition and all retirements benefits have also been paid without giving effect to order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10) impugned herein. Counsel for petitioner submits that after order dt.23/11/93(Ann.9), rights were conferred upon petitioner but without affording an opportunity of hearing & in clear violation of principles of natural justice, order impugned was passed on 26/10/1995 (Ann.10), which is not legally sustainable being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Respondents have filed reply to justify that while passing the order dt. 23/11/93 (Ann.9) revising pay scale treating him to be in the cadre of Stenographer Gr.II w.e.f. 07/11/73, R.7(7) of Rules, 1957 has not rightly interpreted and after apprising by the department of personnel, it has been cancelled vide order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10); in such CW 5022/95 //4// circumstances, no error has been committed while passing order impugned. In the reply it has not been controverted that opportunity was afforded to petitioner before order impugned being passed. Once the petitioner was treated in the cadre of Stenographer and his fixation was revised from time to time, certainly right was conferred upon him in pursuance of order dt. 23/11/93 (Ann.9), which could not have been divested by respondents without due compliance of principles of natural justice. In the opinion of this Court, order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.10) being passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice, hence, cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order dt.26/10/95 (Ann.1) is hereby quashed & set aside. However, since petitioner has retired from service, no purpose would now be served to re-examine the issue; accordingly liberty is declined to proceed with after compliance of principles of natural justice, moreso while all retiral benefits being released in his favour. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/ 5022CW95Aug13.doc