- (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th January, 2012, which is at Annexure 7 to the memo of the petition, passed by respondents, whereby the benefit of second Assured Career Progression given to the petitioner with effect from a particular date, has been recalled by the impugned order and therefore, present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was directly given benefit of second Assured Career Progression on 16th December 2004 with effect from 16th October, 2004. Thereafter, petitioner was in the service of the respondents up to 31st December, 2011 and on the said date the petitioner retired. There is neither any misrepresentation of facts on the part of the petitioner nor any fraud being played by the petitioner for getting the benefit of second Assured Career progression. The respondents, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity to file reply, abruptly passed the impugned order, dated 25th January, 2012, which is at annexure 7 to the memo of the petition, whereby the effective date of second Assured Career Progression is changed from 16th October, 2004 to 7th July, 2008. In this connection, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that had a notice been given to the petitioner, it could have been pointed out that whatever is granted to the petitioner from th October, 2004 is absolutely true and correct and in consonance with the facts and law and the new date for grant of benefit of second Assured Career Progression, i.e.7th July, 2008 is incorrect. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the reason which has been given by the respondents for changing the effective date of second A.C.P. is that the petitioner has not cleared the departmental examination and therefore, the benefit of first Assured Career progression should have been given to the petitioner in the year 2004 and thereafter, benefit of second Assured Career Progression will be due with effect from th July, 2008. As per the counsel for the petitioner, this is an incorrect proposition and had a notice been given to the petitioner, the petitioner could have explained the correct legal position regarding exemption from appearing in the said departmental examination, which has been given to the petitioner by the respondents and therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is violative of the principles of natural justice and if the respondents give any notice, a detailed reply will be given by the petitioner. The said decision (impugned order at Annexure 7 to the memo of the petition) has been passed after the retirement of the present petitioner. The petitioner has retired on 31st December, 2011 and the impugned order has been passed later on, i.e. 25th January, 2012.
(3.) EXCEPT for what has been referred to hereinabove, no other argument has been canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner.;