Shri Dev Raj Sharma v. The State of Punjab & Ors.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of para 8 of the writ petition reveals that on

1.1.1990 while working as Inspector the petitioner was drawing the basic pay of Rs.2460/- in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200. Vide order dated 20.4.1990, the petitioner was promoted in the rank of officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.2275/- (Rs.2200 Basic Pay plus Rs.75/-). In reply to this para, respondents 1 and 2 have admitted the basic pay of the petitioner with the rider that the basic pay drawn by the petitioner was only adhoc and not which he would have drawn had he not gone on deputation to Vigilance Bureau. It is not the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner had not worked in the Vigilance Bureau. Rather it is case of both the parties that the petitioner had remained in Vigilance Bureau right from 1970 till his retirement, except the period he remained on deputation with U.T. Chandigarh (from 23.5.1985 to

13.12.1989). It is also not in dispute that Vigilance Bureau is a Department of Government of Punjab. Thus, re-fixation of pay of the petitioner by DIG Jalandhar Range vide memo dated 18.5.1989(P1), addressed to respondent no.3 is erroneous, without any basis and not CWP No.2779 of 1992 7 sustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, while passing the impugned order dated 18.5.1989 (P1) no reasons have been recorded as to why the pay of the petitioner has been reduced to his detriment. Once it is held that order dated 18.5.1989 (P1) is not sustainable, the order dated

16.6.1989 (P2) passed by respondent no.3, which was based on order Annexure P1 is also liable to be set aside. So far as impugned order dated 27.8.1990 (Annexure P5) fixing the pay of the petitioner in the rank of Officiating DSP, as Rs.2200/- is concerned, the same has also been passed to the detriment of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of being heard, as specifically mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition the petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs.2580/- as on

1.3.1990. This action of respondents is violative of principles of natural justice and hence not sustainable in the eyes of law as the it is well settled that no order of civil consequence can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected person. The order dated 16.10.1991 (Annexure P7) whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that benefit of ex cadre promotion earned by him in the Vigilance Bureau Punjab was not admissible under Rule 4.4(b) of the Rules in matter of pay fixation is also liable to be set aside due to the reasons that once the petitioner has been promoted as DSP on the basis of his service record, then it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the service rendered by the petitioner was on ex-cadre basis. If the service rendered by the petitioner on such ex-cadre post can be the basis for CWP No.2779 of 1992 8 promoting him as DSP then there is no reason to deny him the benefit of that service for fixation of his pay. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated

18.5.1989 (Annexure P1) passed by DIG Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar; dated 16.6.1989 (Annexure P2) passed by respondent no.3 (I.G. Police,UT Chandigarh); order dated 27.8.1990 (Annexure P5) and order dated 16.10.1991 (Annexure P7) passed by respondent no.2 (DGP Punjab,Chandigarh, are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of salary of Inspector to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1983. However, the petitioner would be entitled to actual monetary benefits of pay which are restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition i.e.27.2.1992. It is clarified that the pension of the petitioner will be fixed accordingly.

20.5.2010 (Jaswant Singh) Judge