( 1 ) THE appellants, who were respondent Nos. 2. 1 and 3 respectively in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 13299 of 1997 assail validity of the judgment dated 21. 5. 1997 quashing the order dated 1. 9. 1992 passed by appellant No. 3 the Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and the order dated 12. 3. 1997, passed by appellant No. 2 the then Honble Inspecting Judge, Allahabad.

( 2 ) VIDE order dated 1. 9. 1992, the writ petitioner who was appointed on ad hoc basis as an accounts Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1,200-1,560-EB-40-2,040 was reverted in public interest and for smooth running of the office work as Copyist in the scale of Rs. 950-30-1,150-EB-25-1,500 as during that period, his work was not found to be satisfactory and his writing was also very poor. Vide order dated 12. 3. 1997, the then Honble Inspecting Judge, Allahabad held that the appointing authority has powers to revert an employee from higher scale to lower scale, if his work and conduct is not satisfactory.

( 3 ) THE impugned judgment reads thus :

"this writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 1. 9. 1992 passed by the family Court and the impugned order of the Inspecting Judge dated 12. 3. 1997 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc class II employee in the scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 vide annexure-2 to the writ petition. By the impugned order dated 1. 9. 1992 true copy of which is annexure-3 to the writ petition, he was reverted as Copyist in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1,500. He filed an appeal on the administrative side before the Inspecting Judge but that was rejected, hence this petition. It was held by the Supreme Court in Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (55) FIR 304, that a direct recruit cannot be reverted to a lower post. On the same principle, I am of the opinion that a person appointed on higher pay scale directly cannot be reverted to a lower pay scale. In view of the above this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1. 9. 1992 and 12. 3. 1997 are quashed. No order as to costs. M. Katju, J. "

The original pleadings :

( 4 ) THE case of the respondent, who was the writ petitioner, in short was to this effect :

"he was appointed by the Judge. Family Court, Allahabad with effect from I6tb July, 1991 till 30th September, 1991 on purely ad hoc basis as class III employee whose service was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice ; he was allowed to work from 16. 7. 1991 itself on the substantive vacant post of Accounts Clerk and even after 30th September. 1991, he has been continuously working in the office of the Judge, Family Court at Allahabad ; even though his service record has always been good and he was never communicated of any adverse entry against him. yet to his utter surprise the Impugned order dated 1,9. 1992 was passed casting stigma without giving him an opportunity of hearing and thereby there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play ; he went up in appeal under clause 6 of para 7 of allahabad High Court Rules, 1956, on the administrative side of the Court but it was dismissed vide order dated 12. 3. 1992 ; to the best of his knowledge under Rule 4 (1) (f) of the U. P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules. 1976, punishment of reduction to a lower post, time scale or grade, or to a lower stage in a time scale or graded scale can be imposed but it falls under the category of major punishment and that under Rule 5 thereof no order of reduction in rank can be passed unless a person is informed in writing of the ground on which is proposed to take such action and had been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself : that sub-rules (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 5 aforementioned lays down the procedure which is required to be followed in case of major punishment, which were not at all followed and thus the order dated 1. 9. 1992 is void-ab-initio and liable to be set aside