- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petitioner has approached this Court again for the reason that respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Sahebganj vide order dated 24.05.2010 contained in Memo No. 276 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of Assured Career Progression benefits.
(2.) Earlier he had approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3404 of 2006 being aggrieved vide order dated 17.09.2005 whereby pay scale of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 5000-8000/- was reduced to Rs. 4000-6000/- without giving any opportunity of being heard. The writ petition was disposed of after quashing the impugned order dated 17.09.2005 giving opportunity to the respondents to initiate any action in accordance with law, rules and regulations and policy and enforceable government orders, at least after following the principles of natural justice and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. It was also observed that a copy of circular dated 02.11.2004 was not given to the petitioner nor any notice nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before withdrawal of the accrued right vested in the petitioner. For better appreciation, the relevant part of the order dated 19.05.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3404 of 2006, Annexure-4 is quoted herein:- 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and looking, to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that- I. the present petitioner relied from the services of the respondent as Driver with effect from 31.03.2001. II. upon completion of all the necessary formalities, the benefit of Assured Career Progression was extended to the petitioner on 14.08.2004. III. on the basis of the aforesaid benefit of A.C.P., pay fixation was done in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 22.09.2004, and his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 5600/- and the retrospective effect was given to this benefit i.e. with effect from 8.9.1999. Thus, the petitioner was entitled for the A.C.P. benefit with the fixation of pay scale at Rs. 5600/- vide order dated 22.09.2004 with effect from 08.09.1999. IV. it is alleged by the learned counsel for the respondent in counter affidavit that because of one circular issued to the respondent dated 2.11.2004, the pay fixation had to be reduced of the present petitioner, and therefore, vide order dated 17.09.2005, respondent No. 3 passed an order at annexure-2 to the memo of petition whereby pay scale of the present petitioner, which was wrongly fixed at Rs. 5600/- has not been reduced and re-fixed at Rs. 4800/-. V. the benefit which was given on 22.09.2004 w.e.f. 08.09.1999 has been withdrawn on 17.09.2005. Thus, after lapse of one year the benefit of A.C.P. at Rs. 5600/- scale has been reduced to Rs. 4800/- VI. looking to the order at Annexure-2 passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 17.09.2005, no notice and no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. Whenever a vested and accrued right is taken away by the respondents, at least the principle of natural justice ought to have been followed and complied with. Whatever be the applicability of the circular dated 2.11.2004, that ought to have been made known to the petitioner and even a copy of he circular dated 2.11.2004 ought to have been given to the present petitioner, which has not been given to him. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 17.09.2005 at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hereby, quash the set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 17.9.2005 at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition mainly for the reason that neither a copy of circular dated 2.11.2004 has been given to the petitioner nor the notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioner before withdrawal of the accrued right vested in the petitioner. At the same time, liberty is reserved with the respondent if they so think to initiate any action in accordance with law, rules and regulations and policy and enforceable government orders, at least after following the principles of natural justice and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation.
(3.) It is contention of the petitioner that after passing of the said order, the respondent purportedly issued the registered letter dated 08.05.2010 asking the petitioner to appear on 24.05.2010. However, the said letter was received by him in first week of June, 2010. Therefore, no proper service of notice upon the petitioner was done as was required to be done in view of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3404 of 2006 and in his absence, the matter was decided by the impugned order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Sahebganj. Such statement has been made in para-22 of the instant writ petition.;