-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.9987 OF 2004 NO.9987 OF 2004 NO.9987 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Nandkumar V. Vaidya ...Respondent Mr A.P. Vanarse, AGP for Petitioners. Mr A.K. Saxena for Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.H. BHATIA JJ. DATE : 3RD APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in original application No.445 of 2003 dated 26th March 2003. The original application was filed before the M.A.T. by the applicant - respondent No.1 making a grievance against revision of his pay in the post of Senior Clerk by letter dated 18th June 2002. The fixation of pay-scale of the applicant was done with effect from 1st January 1996. The respondent No.1 joined the services of the Government of Maharashtra as a Junior Clerk on 23rd October 1961. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 5th February 1965. Later on, he was promoted as Head Clerk on 4th January 1996. In order to implement the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission, his pay was to be fixed as on 1st January 1996 in the post of Senior Clerk. That pay fixation was done in the year 2000. By letter dated 18th June 2002, his pay was refixed at a lower grade and the Government proposes to recover certain amounts as a result of refixation. The applicant claimed before the M.A.T., relying on Government Resolution dated 25th January 1999 that his initial fixation of pay was proper and Government was not justified in refixing the pay at a -3- lower grade. The applicant’s grievance is that in any case, if the Government wanted to refix the pay to the disadvantage of the applicant, he was entitled to get an opportunity of being heard. The M.A.T. decided the original application by order dated 26th March 2004. It held that the original pay fixation done appears to be correct and in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 25th January 1999. The M.A.T. also held that the refixation of the pay to the disadvantage of the applicant done without giving any notice to the applicant is violative of principles of natural justice. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that if according to the M.A.T. before refixing the pay to the disadvantage of the applicant, the Government was obliged to issue notice to the applicant and then do the refixation. The M.A.T. should have granted liberty to the Government to issue show cause notice and then after hearing the respondent, do the refixation. According to the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, refixation done was in accordance with Rule 7 sub-rule (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1998. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents also. In our opinion, after having found that the refixation of pay was done to the disadvantage of the applicant and that was admittedly done without granting him an opportunity of being heard, the M.A.T. should not have gone into the merits of the -4- matter. The appropriate course to be followed in such case was to set aside the refixation done and grant liberty to the Government to do the refixation if so advised in compliance with the principles of natural justice. We also find that the M.A.T. while holding that refixation has been done in terms of the Government Resolution dated 25th January 1999, has not examined the case of the applicant that it is Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1998 which ought to been considered. In any case, in view of the order that we propose to make, it is not necessary for us to examine this aspect of the matter. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 2. The order of the M.A.T. setting aside the letter by which the pay of the respondent No.1 was refixed is maintained. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to undertake the process of refixation of the pay of the respondent No.1, if so advised, after complying with the principles of natural justice. It goes without saying that till the petitioners refix the pay of the respondent No.1 in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the respondent No.1 shall be entitled to receive all benefits in accordance with the pay fixation done earlier. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. -5- . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.H. BHATIA J.)