JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The grievance of the petitioners in these 17 petitions is that their emoluments have been retrospectively altered to their disadvantage without the grant of any opportunity. The petitioners allege that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice. They pray that the impugned circulars orders be set aside, and that the respondents be restrained from recovering any amount from their salaries.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 109 of 1998. These may be briefly noticed.
3. The petitioners are Ex-servicemen. They had joined posts with the Punjab National Bank during the period from July 31, 1985 to June 15, 1990. The petitioners pray that their pay in the Bank had to be fixed in conformity with the norms laid down by the Central Government in respect of the re-employed Ex-servicemen. The Bank had fixed their pay accordingly. However, without the grant of any opportunity, a circular was issued on December 12, 1994, in pursuance to which the method of fixation of pay was revised and the emoluments were reduced. The petitioners have alleged that various categories of persons, like peons, Watchman-cum-peons, Armed Guards etc., had suffered financial loss ranging from Rs. 34/- to Rs. 113/-. The petitioners maintain that the action of the respondent is violative of the principles of natural justice. They pray that the impugned circular and the order, reducing their pay, be quashed.
4. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the Government of India. No justification for the issue of the impugned circular by the Ministry of Finance has been given. Even the circumstances in which the circular was issued have not been disclosed to the Court. Counsel for the Union of India has not pointed out any reason which may have necessitated the issue of the impugned circular.
5. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It has been, inter alia, averred that the Bank has “just followed the directives of the Ministry of Finance, Banking Division and by considering the pay and special pay, the answering respondents have protected the pay drawn by the petitioners, respectively, in the Armed Forces at the time of their retirement/discharge.” It has been averred that according to the directions given by the Government of India, the cases had to be re-opened in respect of the persons who were working on posts carrying special allowances. The recovery of excess payment had to be made after March 13, 1992 only. The allegation of the petitioners, that no notice was given before the impugned changes were made, has not been controverted. However, these respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. In the circumstances of the case, we do not consider it necessary to go into the matter in detail. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties. It is clear that the emoluments of the petitioners have been revised and reduced. It is also the admitted position that no notice was given to the petitioners before the impugned action was taken. It has been contended by Mr. H.C. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, that if an opportunity had been granted, the petitioners could have shown that their pay could not be reduced in accordance with the provisions in the bipartite settlement. He also invokes the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to contend that the conditions of service governing the employees could not have been altered to their disadvantage.
8. Reduction of wages is certainly a civil consequence, which flows from the impugned action. It is well settled that even an administrative order, which has civil consequences, must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In the present case it is not disputed that no opportunity was given to the petitioners. Thus, the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice.
9. We dispose of the writ petitions with the direction that the impugned orders of reduction in pay are quashed. The consequential reliefs shall follows. It will, however, be open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
10. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.