Employee Must Be Heard Before Pay-Scale Reduction Even If Initial Appointment Was Irregular: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the quashing of an order that reduced pay-scale of employees without affording opportunity of hearing, irrespective of the fact that the initial appointments of the concerned employees against regular posts were irregular and reduction of their pay scale was a consequence of restoring their position prior to such irregularity.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing appeals filed against the order of a single judge that had set aside the order passed by the appellant reducing the regular pay-scale of the respondents.

The respondents were working as Lower Division Clerks with the appellant on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 12000/- per month. In 2013, they were appointed against regular posts and were granted regular pay scale.

During an audit conducted in 2018, it was revealed that the appointments of respondents against regular posts were irregular. Post this objection raised in the audit, the appellant withdrew the regular pay scale of the respondents and directed them to work on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 12,000 per month. This was challenged before the Court.

The single judge set aside the order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given the respondents before reducing their pay. This order by the single judge was challenged.

The appellant argued that a fraud was committed by the then Manager in making the appointments of the respondents without any approval. When such irregularities were detected during an audit, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the former manager and he was removed from service.

Further, action taken in relation to the respondents was merely to restore the position existing before the irregular appointments.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that reduction of pay-scales of an employee entailed civil consequences. Hence, prior notice and opportunity of hearing had to be afforded. Since the orders of reduction in the pay scale were passed by the appellant, without such notice or opportunity of hearing, these had to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Counsel for appellants: Ms. Pratishta Dave, Adv.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Adv.