WP(C) No. 10056/2004 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.10056/2004 % Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 Sh.Ramji Tripathi …. Petitioner Through Mr. A. Avneesh Mishra, Advocate for Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate Versus Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. …. Respondent Through Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ANIL KUMAR, J. * CM 550/2011 & 549/2011 Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent and on instructions, states that no reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application seeking setting aside the order dated 17th August, 2010 is to be filed. WP(C) No. 10056/2004 Page 2 of 6 For the reasons stated in the applications, they are allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned and the order dated 17th August, 2010, dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his counsel, is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original number. WP(C) No. 10056/2004 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th May, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2793/2007 titled as ‘Ramji Tripathi Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors.’ dismissing his application against the order dated 7th November, 2003 without any notice to him and without hearing him after fixing his pensionary benefits by order dated 9th May, 2002 2. The petitioner was working as an officer with the Indian Information Service, who superannuated from service on 28th February, 2002. 3. The petitioner was intimated by order dated 9th May, 2002 about his pensionary benefits and basic amount of pension was fixed at Rs.9200/-. WP(C) No. 10056/2004 Page 3 of 6 4. Later on without giving any intimation or show cause notice about modification of his pension, by order dated 7th November, 2003, Senior Accounts Officer of PAO of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting intimated to the Dy. Secretary, Ministry of I&B that the pension of the petitioner had been erroneously finalized by allowing fixation of pay in the scale of Rs.18400-500-22400/-. According to the respondents, the pay of the petitioner had been erroneously fixed in the said scale, therefore, his pension was revised by restricting his pay drawn up to 28th February, 2002. 5. The reason for revision of the pension as stated by the respondents was that the grant of pro-forma promotion to the petitioner in the scale of Rs.18400-500-22400 was conditional subject to actual promotion effective from the date of the petitioner joining the duty in India. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not join duty in India, therefore he was not entitled for fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs.18400-400-500-22400 and consequently the pension of the petitioner was revised from Rs.9200/- to 8070/- by order dated 20th October, 2003. WP(C) No. 10056/2004 Page 4 of 6 7. The order was challenged by the petitioner, however, the Tribunal dismissed the OA on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the conditions attached to the proforma promotion and consequently, if the petitioner had not complied with the condition of proforma promotion, he would not be entitled for the same and consequently the respondents were entitled to modify the pension in accordance with rules. 8. Be that as it may, this cannot be disputed that the order revising the pension on the ground that the condition for pro-forma promotion had not been complied with, had an adverse impact on the rights of the petitioner about his pension which had been determined and intimated by order dated 9th May, 2002. Consequently, the respondents were liable to give an opportunity to the petitioner before passing an order reducing his pension on the ground that the condition for pro-forma promotion was not complied with by the petitioner. 9. It is also admitted that the respondents had not given any show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his pension be not reduced nor was he given any hearing on account of not complying with conditional pro-forma promotion. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for hearing and consideration of his explanation before any WP(C) No. 10056/2004 Page 5 of 6 decision is taken reducing or modifying the pension amount which was intimated to him by order dated 9th May, 2002. The learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to show anything on the basis of which it can be inferred that the petitioner was heard and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before modifying the amount of his pension. 11. In the circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the order dated 20th October, 2003 reducing the pension of the petitioner from Rs.9200/- to Rs.8070/- per month without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are permitted to decide whether the pension of the petitioner is liable to be reduced or not after giving appropriate show cause notice and hearing to the petitioner. 12. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 19th May, 2004 in O.A No. 2793 of 2003 titled ‘Ramji Tripathi Vs Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors’ is set aside along with order dated 20th October, 2003 of the respondents reducing the pension of the petitioner from Rs.9200 to Rs.8070, as the order reducing the pension was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The respondents shall be entitled to pass appropriate order, if any, reducing WP(C) No. 10056/2004 Page 6 of 6 the pension of the petitioner on the grounds that he had not fulfilled the condition for pro-forma promotion, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and considering his explanation if any. Needful be done by the respondents within six months after receipt of the copy of this order. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. All the pending applications are also disposed of. ANIL KUMAR, J. March 15, 2011 VEENA BIRBAL, J. ‘rs’