KISHAN S/O LATE SHRI CHANDRA BALI Vs. G B PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
G. B. PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Pump Operator in the year 1993 in the respondent University. The Board of Management issued an order dated 21st December, 2006 revising the pay scale of the Pump Mechanic from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000 working in the Water Works Department of the University. The feeding cadre of Pump Mechanic is Pump Attendant, Pump Operator, Pump Driver, Watermen Attendant & Plumber. The petitioner, being a Pump Operator, was promoted as a Pump Mechanic in the Farm Establishment of the University upon completion of 14 years of continuous service.
(2.) It transpires that the University submitted a proposal to give the pay-scale of Pump Mechanic from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000 as given to the Pump Mechanic of the Water Works Department of the University. This proposal is annexed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Without the proposal being approved by the Board of Management of the University, it transpires that the respondents issued an order dated 03rd May, 2007 giving the petitioner promotional pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Subsequently, when the defect was realized, the University issued an order dated 06.09.2010 reducing the pay-scale of the petitioner from Rs. 4000-6000 to Rs. 3200-4900 and directed the department to recover the excess amount.
(3.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order dated 06.09.2010, has filed the present writ petition. The impugned order contends that the pay-scale has wrongly been given to the petitioner against the Government Orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no Government Order to that effect have been enclosed in the counter affidavit and, therefore, the reduction in the pay-scale is patently erroneous. Further, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.