The Allahabad High Court has quashed a Uttar Pradesh government order/notice and said the principle of natural justice has not been followed by the state as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the writ petitioners before the pay-scale was re-fixed/reduced giving rise to civil consequences.
A single-judge bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order while hearing the bunch of petitions filed by Awadesh Kumar Singh and Others.
The writ petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions were initially appointed as part time Tube Well Operators between 1980 to 1990 and were subsequently regularized and most of them have also superannuated.
The issue raised had its beginning in 1992, wherein the state of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 20.2.1992, whereby the nomenclature of “Part Time Tube Well Operator” was changed to “Tube Well Assistant” and their honorarium was enhanced from Rs 299 per month to Rs 550 per month.
The other precipitating issue at that point of time had been the decision of the Labour Court in two cases, which were filed by some “Part Time TubeWell Operators”, before the Labour Court claiming pay parity with regular Tube Well Operators under the provisions of UP Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
As far as the aforesaid Labour Court cases were concerned, both the aforesaid cases were decided in favour of the “Part Time TubeWell Operators” vide award dated 15.7.1989 and 1.2.1991, respectively, wherein the Labour Court returned a finding that since “Part Time TubeWell Operators” worked just as hard as regular Tube Well Operator, they were entitled to pay parity with regular Tube Well Operators.
Not satisfied with the aforesaid award of the Labour Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the same by filing Writ Petition: Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, UP and others Vs Makrand Singh and others. Simultaneously, other writ petitions, leading writ petition: Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs State of UP and others, were also filed before the Court, challenging the aforesaid notification dated 20.2.1992, by which nomenclature of Tube Well Operators was changed to Tubewell Assistants and an honoraria of Rs 500 per month has been fixed in lieu of pay. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided the aforesaid writ petitions by a common judgment and order dated 18.5.1994.
The order dated 18.05.1994 was challenged by the State of UP by filing Special Leave Petition: State of UP Vs Mangra Pd Verma and others, before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22.03.1995, observing therein that the duties, qualifications, and hours of working of the “Part Time TubeWell Operators” are similar to that of regular Tube Well Operators and thus based on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the State. The Review Petitions filed by the State seeking review of the order dated 22.03.1995, was dismissed on 18.10.1995.
A.M Tripathi, R.C Tiwari, Y.K Mishra, Advocates for the petitioners, submitted the petitioners were getting their salary in the said pay scale in accordance with the judgments and in compliance of the Court. The petitioners were not heard before any refixing of pay scale by the respondent and since the re-fixing of salary resulted in civil consequences of reduction of salary and proposed recovery, a chance of hearing was obligatory on the part of the Respondent/state.
They also submitted that in the cases not only the petitioners have been getting salary from 31-03-1989 to 18-05-1994 under Court’s order, but also the Apex Court has not directed recovery of such payments.
Further, they were not a party to the Supreme Court order dated 04.01.2016, in which the Apex Court had given clarification relating to the date of applicability of the pay-scale. According to them, the order granting the pay scale with effect from 31.03.1989 by the High Court has merged with the Apex Court in view of the doctrine of merger and in their own case and in any case, the issue relating to the applicability of the pay scale stands settled and the same cannot be re-opened again as the same would be barred by the principles of res judicata.
On the other hand, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sanjay Sarin, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Tushar Verma, Special Counsel led the arguments on the side of the respondent-State. Written submissions have also been filed by the respondents. In nutshell, it has been submitted that numerous litigations which also includes the litigation of the petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions have been concluded by the orders passed in the leading SLP by order dated 22/01/2016 by which the Supreme Court while considering the bunch of SLP’s has settled after looking into the entire history of litigation with regard to the dispute being every now and then raised by the part-time tube well operators with regard to the grant of regular pay scale in pursuance of the judgment rendered in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari (Supra).
“In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that since the principle of natural justice has not been followed by the respondent/state as no opportunity of hearing has been given by them to the writ petitioners, before the pay-scale was re-fixed/reduced giving rise to civil consequences, the impugned order/notice issued by the respondent in the first category of writ petitions cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law and as such the same are hereby quashed,” the Court observed while disposing the petition.
“Consequently, all orders of recovery impugned in the second category of cases also stand quashed as being an off-shoot of the impugned order/notice in the first category of writ petitions. However, it shall be open to the respondent/State to issue fresh notice/order to the writ petitioners and take a decision in accordance with law.
Further, it goes without saying that since all the issues which are noticed and enunciated above would merit consideration before the competent Authority, who shall have to evaluate the claims of the petitioners herein, bearing in mind the various competing factors & observation as has been mentioned herein above, it is directed that the competent Authority shall give an opportunity of explanation and/or hearing to the writ petitioners, before passing a speaking order in the matter.
For the aforesaid purpose, the matters shall stand remitted to the competent authority. The exercise of reconsideration may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months of the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of the order, keeping in mind that most of the petitioners have already superannuated,” the order reads.