IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1975 of 2010
1. TRIBHUWAN NATH MISHRA S/O LATE SATYA NARAIN MISHRA R/O VILL
PURWA, P.S- HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTT- VAISHALI
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WELFARE, MUNGER DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHEDULED CSTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR
4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BEGUSARAI, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHEDULED CSTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR
5. THE DISTRICT ACCOUTNS OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, BEGUSARAI
-----------
2/ 12/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The grievance of the petitioner is against stoppage
of salary completely in context of a controversy raised from a
source other than the Government authorities of his
ineligibility to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as ordered on
24.9.2009 pending enquiry.
Learned counsel for the State points out from
Annexure-E to the counter affidavit dated 19.2.2010, after
filing of the writ petition that orders have been issued for
payment of salary at the old pay scale pending decision.
Any administrative order to the prejudice of an
employee visiting him with adverse civil consequences has to
be in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The
contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid pay scale
has been paid to him ever since 1.1.1998 till the issuance of
-2-
the impugned order in an ex-parte manner. This law stands
well settled and is not a recent enunciation of administrative
law. If the respondent authorities insist on arrogating unto
themselves powers which the law specifically prohibits, the
Court has little option but to set aside such orders.
Learned counsel for the State from the counter
affidavit acknowledges that no show cause has been given
prior to stoppage of salary or direction for a lesser scale
pending enquiry. The right to receive salary is a statutory
right and can be interfered with only in accordance with law.
The petitioner is held entitled to the salary that
was being drawn by him from 1.1.1998 before the impugned
order came to be issued.
The respondents shall be at liberty to serve a
show cause notice upon the petitioner which the petitioner is
required to reply within such reasonable time as may be
granted by the respondents whereafter the respondents shall
decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order to
facilitate judicial review should the need arise.
The impugned order dated 24.9.2009 is quashed.
The application is allowed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)