IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8070 of 2006 MD.SAJID HUSSAIN S/o late Md. Abid Hussain, resident of Village-Sarfuddinpur, P.S.-Bihta, District- Patna at present posted as Draft man, Design Division No. 1, Water Resources Development Department, Anisabad, Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Deparment of Water Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Anisabad, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Design Organization and Monitoring Circle, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Quality Control Division No. 1, Water Resources Development Department, Anisabad, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. Mr. Brejesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad Sinha, G.P.-3 Mr. Surjakant Kumar, Adv. ------------ 2. 18.11.2010 Some facts are not in dispute which is that the petitioner was Draftman Grade-II working under the respondent State of Bihar with effect from 21.10.1976. Petitioner came to be appointed as Draftman Grade-I, in current charge by way of promotion, as would be evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. Petitioner worked in that capacity for a long time and was even given pay scale. All had been well for the petitioner till the Executive Engineer decided to rework his salary by 2 virtue of Annexure-1 dated 3.6.2006. The pay scale was sought to be reverted on the ground that the petitioner was never given substantive promotion as a Draftman Grade-I. It is this order therefore which is sought to be challenged in the writ application. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working on the post right from 1976 and even time bound promotion came to be given to him by the respondents. He also does not deny that in terms of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code way back in the year 1981, petitioner was also given 20% extra salary of his basic pay but then, subsequently, he has been given the pay scale which he was drawing on the post of Draftman Grade-I for almost two decades. The petitioner ought to have been promoted on a regular basis after having worked in that capacity because it is not the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not have the basic eligibility or that he did not fulfill the criteria for being promoted in a substantive capacity on Grade-I post. Failure on the part of the respondents, therefore, cannot be held out against him. In addition to that he contends that this order has come to be passed without giving him any 3 opportunity of hearing and show cause has been issued in this regard and the same has implications for him. This aspect has not been denied that the petitioner was not given an opportunity before Annexure-1 came to be issued. If an order passed has civil consequences, the employee ought to have been heard or given an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which a particular pay scale came to be given to him. Though a general statement has been made in the counter affidavit but without any supporting material. Annexure-1 therefore, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents with a direction that they shall give an opportunity to the petitioner on this count and only after hearing him, shall they pass appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)