In CM-2983-C-2023-PUNJ HC-No order causing prejudice to employee can be passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him: P&H HC upholds quashing of Order withdrawing pay scale from  employee on ground of violation of rules of natural justice
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi [25-03-2023]

Read Order: STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS ROOP RAM

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 6, 2023: By partly allowing a regular second appeal assailing the judgment whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was accepted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that quashing of the impugned order withdrawing the pay scale from the respondent-plaintiff by the lower appellate court has to be upheld on the ground of violations of rules of natural justice.

A  Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi partly allowed the present appeal by observing that the impugned order withdrawing the pay scale from the respondent-plaintiff cannot be sustained and quashing of the same by the lower appellate court needs to be upheld on the ground of violations of rules of natural justice. 

The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Fitter Coolie. The State of Haryana revised the pay scale of the employees of the Government of Haryana vide Notification dated August 28, 1990 w.e.f. January 1, 1986.  Under the Notification, the posts, for which technical qualification was required for appointment, were placed in a pay scale of Rs 950-1400. The respondent-plaintiff claimed the benefit of the said pay scale on the ground that he was having I.T.I. Diploma. The benefit of pay scale of  Rs 950-1400 was extended to the respondent-plaintiff. 

Later on, the appellants-defendants realized their mistake that the post on which the respondent-plaintiff was working i.e. Fitter Coolie, was  not a technical post as no technical qualification was  required for appointment to the said post and the pay scale of Rs 950-1400 allowed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, was withdrawn vide order dated June 4, 1998. 

The said order was challenged by the respondent-plaintiff by filing a civil suit. Keeping in view the evidence, which came on record, though the trial court also noticed the fact that withdrawal of the pay scale in the year 1998 by the impugned order was passed without giving any show cause notice but trial court held that as the respondent-plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim to get the pay scale of  Rs 950-1400, the order dated June 4, 1998 cannot be set-aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed. 

Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the trial court, appeal was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court decided the appeal and held that as the qualification required for appointment to the post of Fitter Collie is Matric/I.T.I., the same was technical in nature and, therefore, the impugned order passed was bad . 

The judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted it is a conceded position that before passing the impugned order, the pay scale of `950-1400, which was already allowed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in the year 1994, w.e.f. May 1, 1990 was  withdrawn without giving any show cause notice. The findings recorded by the courts below were based upon the evidence. 

Referring to the judgments of the Top Court in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak and another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and another, the Bench reaffirmed that where any order passed by the authority concerned causes prejudice to an employee especially, financial liability, an opportunity of hearing is must and no order causing prejudice to an employee can be passed by an employer unilaterally.

“Keeping in view the settled principle of law, no order causing prejudice to an employee can be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to him”, the Court noted. 

In the present case, even the qualification required for the post of Fitter Collie was in dispute, the Court further noted.  That being so, the Bench held that the impugned order withdrawing the pay scale from the respondent-plaintiff couldnot be sustained and quashing of the same by the lower appellate court was upheld on the ground of violations of rules of natural justice. 

As the impugned order was being set-aside on the basis of a technicality due to the violations of the rules of natural justice, the case was therefore  remanded back to the authorities concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent-plaintiff.  Thus, the appeal was partly allowed.