Omveer Singh vs the State of U.P. and Another

Instructions have been supplied by Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, submits that he is well equipped with the instructions and the instructions are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petition and he does not propose to file any further affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶13

3.The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of constable on 20.05.1984, however, the writ petitioner stood superannuated on 28.02.2023 and by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the second respondent, Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, the basic salary has been reduced to Rs. 56900/- from 62,200/- w.e.f. 01.07.2022. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that no opportunity had been accorded to the writ petitioner and action was unilateral behind the back of the writ petitioner. Further submission is that it is not the case of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be the order which is subject matter of challenge is dated 18.05.2023 according to him it is not forthcoming from the order impugned that the writ petitionern was put to notice.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records

¶16

WRIA No. 18954 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

carefully.

¶19

The facts are not in issue. Apparently, the grievance is that the entire exercise undertaken by the respondents while reducing the salary while altering it is a unilateral action. In the opinion of the Court, any action which is undertaken exparte that to the determent cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 154 had observed as under:

¶20

"3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."

¶21

Since it is not forthcoming for the order impugned that the writ petitioner was put to notice thus this Court has no option but to set aside the order.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner:

¶23

(a). The party shall furnish a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition by 07.01.2026 before the second respondent and the authority shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

¶24

(b) On the said motion, the second respondent shall issue a show cause notice to the writ petitioner to which the writ petitioner shall tender reply and thereafter a final order be passed within a period two months from the

¶25

WRIA No. 18954 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

¶28

(b) The order dated 18.05.2023 shall be subject to further orders to be passed therein.

¶29