C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 Date of decision : 31.3.2008. ... Partap Singh Dahiya and others ................ Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to orders dated 30.12.2005 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), vide which their claim for release of amount of Travelling allowance and Daily Allowance, at par with Class-I Officers, has been returned/rejected. When notice of motion was issued on 4.10.2007, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court:- “The petitioners who are serving as Members of District Consumer Forum are aggrieved by the orders C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -2- (Annexures P-4 & P-5) by which the T.A. D.A. Bills submitted by the petitioners have been returned on the ground that they were entitled to be reimbursed as per the usual mode of transport. Mr. J.S. Cooner, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the appointment letters (Annexure P-1), the petitioners were entitled to Travelling and Daily Allowance on official tours as were admissible to Class-I Officers of the State Government. On the basis of the above, learned counsel submits that the rejection of the T.A. Bills submitted by the petitioners is contrary to the terms of the appointment letter of the petitioners.” In response to the notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that in view of amendment in Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 on 17.3.2004, the petitioners are entitled to get amount towards abovesaid benefits at par with Grade-II Officers of the State of Haryana,. Further objection has been raised that before undertaking any journey, the petitioners were supposed to get prior approval from Head of the Department. Counsel for the parties heard. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 27.11.2002 ( P-1), petitioner No.1 was appointed as Member of the District Consumer Forum at Panipat, petitioner No.2 was appointed in the same capacity at Gurgaon, petitioner No.3 also at Panipat and petitioner No.4 at Rewari. Following were the terms and conditions of their appointment:- C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -3- “1. The appointment as a part time member of the District Forum shall be for a term of five years from the date of their joining or till he/she attains the age of 65 years which ever is earlier. 2. He/She will not be eligible for re-appointment. 3. He/She will receive consolidated honorarium of Rs.300/- per day for sitting. 4. He/She will be entitled to such travelling and daily allowance on official tour as are admissible to Class-I Officers of the State Government. 5. Their appointment will be liable to be terminated as per conditions laid down in sub-clause (5) of rule 3 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Other terms and conditions of their appointment will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 and any other rules framed by the State Government from time to time in this behalf.” It is apparent from the record that petitioners were appointed as part time Members of the District Consumer Forums, for a period of five years. Clause 4 specifically states that they will be entitled to such travelling and daily allowance, on official tour, as were admissible to Class-I Officers of the State Government. Subsequent, thereto, it was mentioned that other terms and conditions of their C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -4- appointment will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the abovesaid rules or any other rules framed by the State Government from time to time. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 18.7.2004 (Annexure P-2), as a stop gap arrangement, petitioner No.1 was asked to attend District Consumer Forum at Kaithal and petitioner No.4 was asked to attend District Consumer Forum at Bhiwani on specific days. In the abovesaid letter, it was specifically stated that they will be entitled to Travelling/Daily allowance as per their terms and conditions of the appointment, for the dates they conduct Court proceedings, in other District Forums by holding additional charge. It was further stated that they shall not be entitled to any other benefit other than as referred to above. Similarly, vide order dated 18.10.2004 (Annexure P-3), petitioner No.2, as a stop gap arrangement, was asked to attend District Consumer Forum., Faridabad and petitioner No.3 was asked to attend District Consumer Forum, Jind on specific days, on the same terms and conditions, as referred to above. Petitioners had no option, except to comply with the orders dated 18.7.2004 (P-2) and 18.10.2004 (P-3), asking them to attend District Consumer Forums in the adjoining Districts. They undertook journey(s) for the abovesaid purpose and thereafter submitted their bills, for approval/reimbursement. Those bills were returned. Hence, this writ petition. The only objection which has been raised for denial of benefit to the petitioners is that the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 were amended on 17.3.2004 and in view of amended C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -5- rules, petitioners are entitled to get abovesaid benefit at par with Grade-II Officers of the State of Haryana and further that they were supposed to get prior approval of the Head of Department before undertaking journey to the adjoining Districts. We feel the objection raised and is not legally tanable. It is apparent from the records that in appointment letter Annexure P-1, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners shall be entitled to such travelling and daily allowance, on official tour, at par with Class-I Officers of the State of Haryana. Appointment letter nowhere states that abovesaid condition could be changed by the respondents. It is also an admitted fact that before amendment of the rules and imposing new conditions upon the petitioners, no opportunity of hearing was given to them. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BCPP Mazdoor Sangh and another vs. N.T.P.C. And others 2008 (1) RSJ 107, has observed thus:- “29. The Government or its instrumentality cannot alter the conditions of service of its employees and any such alteration causing prejudice cannot be effected without affording opportunity of pre-decisional hearing and the same would amount to arbitrary and violative of Article 14. As pointed out earlier, in the case on hand, the employees are neither party to tripartite agreement nor they have been heard before changing their service condition. Therefore, the action of the management is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -6- Similar view has been taken by this Court in H.L. Trehan and others vs. Union of India and others, 1989 (1) SCC 764. In para 11 of the judgment, this Court observed as under: “....It is now a well established principle of law that there can be no deprivation or curtailment of any existing right, advantage or benefit enjoyed by a Government servant without complying with the rules of natural justice by giving the Government servant concerned an opportunity of being heard. Any arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power prejudicially affecting the existing conditions of service of a Government servant will offend against the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the employees of CORIL were not given an opportunity of hearing or representing their case before the impugned circular was issued by the Board of Directors. The impugned circular cannot, therefore, be sustained as it offends against the rules of natural justice.” ” In this case also before effecting amendment in terms and conditions of service of the petitioners, no notice was given to them. So far as permission from Head of the Department, before undertaking journey to the adjoining District, is concerned, the objection is palpably wrong. Vide orders Annexures P-2 and P-3, the respondents themselves gave additional charge to all the petitioners and they were directed to attend the Courts in the adjoining Districts. C.W.P. No. 15468 of 2007 -7- The petitioners had no option except to comply with the abovesaid orders. Under these circumstances, we feel that it was not necessary for them to get prior approval from Head of the District Consumer Forum, where they were initially posted. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and directions are issued to respondents to clear Travelling allowance and Daily Allowance bills of the petitioners at par with Class-I Officer of the State of Haryana. Needful be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K.C. Puri ) 31.3.2008. Judge chug