Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17168
Decided on: 10.11.2022
Present:
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate and Mr. Suman Rani, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kapil Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.7.
Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 309 – Disturbance in seniority – Opportunity of hearing -- Petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter adjusted in the head office – Impugned order passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office -- Petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation and by affording an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.
(Para 5, 6)
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure P-7) whereby his seniority in Head Office has been disturbed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order (Annexure P-7) has been passed by respondent No.3 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, however, submits that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Upper Divisional Clerk in the field cadre in pursuance to an advertisement for recruiting the staff in field cadre. His services after appointment were placed at the head office at the disposal of the General Manager, DHBVNL. There was shortage of staff in the headquarter and those who had been working in field office, had been adjusted at the headquarter. The petitioner was also adjusted in a similar manner.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter, he appears to have been adjusted in the head office. It is manifest from the perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-7) that the same has been passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office. The petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order which has affected the rights of the petitioner.
6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure P-7) is set aside. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation received against him. He shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
********