Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner was initially appointed on 26.2. 72 as a Work Agent and vide order dated 14.8.76, he was declared as semi- permanent Road Mistry w.e.f. 1.12.1974 treating him to be working on the post regularly from 1.12.1972 and he was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 100-180 vide copy of order dated 14.8.76 (Annex. 1). In the order Annex.1 it has been mentioned that the petitioner

is declared as semi-permanent from 1.12.74 and his pay is fixed as Rs. 100/- per month in the scale of Rs. 100-180. Initially in Annex. 1 at the place wherever 100 has been written, word 70 was written, but after scoring the same word 100 has been mentioned and each cutting is initialled by the Officer who had passed the order. He was also paid arrears of pay from 1.4.76 in the scale of Rs. 100-180. It is stated by the petitioner that he was given grade of Rs. 100-180 because of the reason that he was Hr. Secondary passed and also discharging the duties of Civil Mistry which is a post higher than the Road Mistry. He was allowed due yearly increments, but all of sudden, without issuing any show cause notice vide order dated 11.9.81 (Annex. 2) the A.En, has refixed the pay reducing the pay from 100-180 to 70-110 w.e.f 1.4.76 in the scale of Road Mistry and further order was made for recovery of amount with the monthly instalment of Rs. 90/- per month. Being aggrieved with the order Annex. 2 the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, who vide its order dt. 13.10.1981 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner before Tribunal was identical as in the present writ petition i.e. that he had never worked as Road Mistry, but he was working as Civil Mistry through-out and the grade of Civil Mistry was 100 -180, therefore, he was rightly fixed in the scale vide order Annex.1 The Tribunal had non-suited the petitioner on an unimaginative ground without looking to the original or photo

stat copy of Annex. 1 by saying that the word``Road had been cut or crossed by the petitioner and it has been substituted by words ``Civil by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has tampered with the copy of order just to mislead the Tribunal. On the photo- stat copy produced by the petitioner in the Court attached with the writ petition, there is no such cutting. The word Road has not been cut at

all rather it is clearly mentioned as `` Road Mistry. However, it is admitted that the grade of Civil Mistry is 100-180. There is definitely cutting so far as mentioning of grades are concerned. Rs. 70/- has been cut and 100 has been written. Similarly 110 has been cut and 180 has been written , wherever it occures in Annex. 1. But all these cutting are again initialled b y same person. If that was so, the Tribunal could not have jumped to the conclusion that these cuttings have been made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. As all the cuttings are initialled, a proper opportunity ought to have been given in case the Tribunal so desired to find out the author of Annex. 1 and author of person who has put the initial on cutting. No such thing has been done by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has straight way jumped to the conclusion that this cuttings must have been done by the petitioner. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is only based on conjectures and surmises and cannot be upheld.The Tribunal has not gone in to the other aspect of the matter i.e. whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order for recovery or changing the grade of petitioner by reducing the same vide Annex.2.

(2) In similar circumstances, in the case relating to one Om Prakash, who was junior to the petitioner and was Similary declared semi- permanent `Road Inspector much later than the petitioner and was similarly placed in the grade of 100-180 vide Annex. 6. which document also contained cutting similar to that of petitioner

and whose pay was also reduced in the similar manner as to that of the petitioner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document