S JANAK SINGH Vs. AIR OFFICER COMMANDING (AIR CMDE) SGR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were initially appointed as civilian M. T. Dvrs. who later on came to be appointed in Grade -II with effect from 1 -5 -1962. Subsequently, it transpires from a perusal of the petition and the counter affidavit filed thereto that they were promoted from Grade -II to Grade -I with effect from 27 -12 -1 67. While the petitioners were serving fs M.T. Dvrs. Grade -I, vide order dated 24 -11 -1979, they were reverted to Grade -II Civilian M. T. Dvrs. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order of reversion principally on two grounds first, that the order of reversion has been passed after 12 years from the date of their promotion without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and behind their back, and, secondly, that even if recourse was to be had to AFO -1867, of l967, no past case could be reopened in terms of appendix -B to AFO -176 of 1967 as contained in Annexure -A to the counter affidavit which specifically provides that pass cases will not be re -opened.

(2.) IN the counter filed, the appointment of the petitioners in Grade -II and their promotions from Grade -II to Grade -I with effect from 27 -12 -1967, has not been denied. It has also been admitted that the petitioners were reverted in 1979 i.e., 12 years after they were promoted to Grade -I. The justification for reversion as spelt our in the counter in paras 5, 6 & 7 is that the promotion had been made in the case of the petitioners in excess of the percentage authorized by the government and when the mistake came to the notice of the admistration, they reverted the petitioners to Grade -II. To the specific charge of the petitioners in paras 10, 11 & 12 (c) that by their reversion to Grade -II they have been reduced in pay -seals and grade and that the orders were passed without granting them any opportunity of hearing or showing cause against the reversion, the respondent is singularly silent. As a matter of fact, it has not been stated in the counter that any hearing whatsoever was given to the petitioners before the orders of reversion came to be made. Undoubtedly the order of reversion has visited the petitioners with civil consequences. The petitioners were promoted to Grade -1 in the year 1967 and after a period of 12 years, they were reverted to Grade -II and the reversion resulted in the reduction in their pay and allowances. The respondent in the counter, while justifying the reversion has also taken shelter under the financial effect of the promotions as is evident from para 7 of counter affidavit. Since, the order of reversion visited the petitioners with civil consequences, same could not have been passed without hearing the petitioners and giving them opportunity of being heard. Even if the respondent was of the opinion that there was some mistake committed, while granting promotion, they could not cancel the order of the petitioners and revert the petitioners without following the principles of natural justice and basic principle being of granting a hearing before any adverse order is passed. In Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway. Dmapur and others V.L.N. Kashri and others -AIR 1974 S. C. 1889, under somewhat similar circumstances, where the benefit of the enhanced pay wrongly given to the employees was withdrawn, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that after the employees had got the benefit of the revised scale, that scale could not be reduced without giving opportunity of hearing to them. In view of this settled law, the orders of reversion passed by the respondent cannot be sustained. In the view that I have taken I need not discuss the second grievance projected by the petitioners. The orders o reversion passed by the respondent are, therefore,quashed and set aside, Mr. Ashowk Bhan has filled power of attorney on behalf of the respondent but since, he is not present ,there shall be no order as to costs.