Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Seema Dekate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2015
WP-3874-2014
(DR. (MRS.) SEEMA DEKATE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-04-2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
1. WP No.17665/2012
Dr. Nitya Ranjan Das................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. and Others â¦...Respondents
2. WP No.18433/2012
Dr. Smt. Suniti Sen....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ............Respondents
3. WP No. 19838/2012
Dr. Mrs. Harmeet Cheema .........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ..........Respondents
4. WPNo.19891/2012
Dr. Rajni Dubey....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others.........Respondents
5. WP No.21641/2012
Govind Narayan Pateria .............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents
6. WP No.21659/2012
Dr. Mrs. Sunita Gupta ............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others â¦...........Respondents
7. WP No.21745/2012
Devendra Singh Rajput................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
8. WP No.21747/2012
Sanat Kumar Jain....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents
9. WP No.900/2013
Dr. Kaushal Kuamr Mishra.......Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
10. WP No.3116/2013
Dr. Pushpraj Singh......................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others...........Respondents
11. WP No.3143/2013
Dr. Prabhat Kumar Pandey...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
12. WP No. 3674/2013
Dr. Shail Shrivastava................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
13. WP No. 3752/2013
Dr. Mrs. Pushplata Chouksey.........Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others...........Respondents
14. WP No. 5505/2013
Bhartesh Bharill................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents
15. WP No. 8575/2013
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Kuraria......Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ........Respondents
16. WP No. 8922/2013
Dr. Kailash Tyagi................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ......Respondents
17. WP No. 11006/2013
Dr. Dharamchand Jain................Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
18. WP No. 11213/2013
Smt. Pratibha Jain................Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others ......Respondents
19. WP No. 11793/2013
Dr. Smt. Kiran Singh ................Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents
20. WP No. 14540/2013
Dr. Smt. Ganga Mishra................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
21. WP No. 20262/2013
Dr. Scaria V. Joseph................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ........Respondents
22. WP No. 22225/2013
Dr. Smt. Lalita Tripathi ............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
23. WP No. 22376/2013
Dr. S.D. Singh ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others
24. WP No. 22410/2013
Dr. Santosh Bhargava ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
25. WP No. 1223/2014
Dr. Bahadur Singh Parmar ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
26. WP No. 1643/2014
Dr. Smt. Smriti Shukla ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others â¦.........Respondents
27. WP No. 1796/2014
Dr. Smt. Urmila Kharpuse ...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents
28. WP No. 2084/2014
Dr. Lata Sharma ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ....Respondents
29. WP No. 2412/2014
Dr. Sushil Kumar Dubey ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
30. WP No. 3578/2014
Dr. Vinod Kumar Rastogi ...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
31. WP No. 3580/2014
Dr. Arun Kumar Sikarwar ..........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
32. WP No. 3582/2014
Dr. Ram Krishna Shrivastava ......Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
33. WP No. 3587/2014
Dr. S.C. Rai .........................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ......Respondents
34. WP No. 3642/2014
Dr. Shrikant Dubey ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents
35. WP No. 3873/2014
Dr. Mrs Usha Shukla ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
36. WP No. 3878/2014
Dr. Benoy Kumar Sinha ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
37. WP No. 5009/2014
Dr. Smt. Shashi Kiran Naik .........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
38. WP No. 5143/2014
Dr. Pushpa M. Rawtani .............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
39. WP â 5183/2014
Dr. (MRS.) Pratibha Kumar .........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
40. WP No. 5263/2014
Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
41. WP No. 5294/2014
Dr. Rashmi Singh .....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
42. WP No. 5637/2014
Dr. Smt. Sumitra Verma ............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
43. WP No. 6527/2014
Dr. Santosh Gupta â¦..................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
44. WP No. 6535/2014
Dr. Praveen Chand Tamot ............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents
45. WP No. 6551/2014
Dr. Kalpana Dave ......................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
46. WP No. 6552/2014
Dr. Rohit Trivedi ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others...........Respondents
47. WP No. 6557/2014
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ..............Respondents
48. WP No. 6559/2014
Dr. B.M.S. Bhadoria ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
49. WP No. 6995/2014
Dr. Anil Shivani â¦....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
50. WP No. 7322/2014
Dr. Amar Kumar Jain ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
51. WP No. 7327/2014
Dr. (Ms.) Aarti Shrivastava ...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others â¦............Respondents
52. WP No. 7328/2014
Dr. Mahendra Singhai................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents
53. WP No. 7738/2014
Dr. Mohan Lal Soni................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents
54. WP No. 8184/2014
Dr. Rajendra Pandey ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
55. WP No. 8353/2014
Dr. Naveen Kumar Gideon .........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
56. WP No. 8356/2014
Dr. Umesh Sakalle ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents
57. WP No. 8358/2014
Dr. Smt. Vijeta Choubey .............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
58. WP No. 8362/2014
Dr. Rachna Mishra ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .......Respondents
59. WP No. 8364/2014
Dr. Navaratn Prakash Niranjan.....Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
60. WP No. 8365/2014
Dr. Keertikam Dubey ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
61. WP No. 8529/2014
Dr. Anil Kumar Dalela ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
62. WP No. 10367/2014
Smt.Geeta Modi ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
63. WP No. 10574/2014
Dr. D.C. Upadhyay ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
64. WP No. 10579/2014
Dr. S.L. Soni ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .....Respondents
65. WP No. 10586/2014
Dr. Mrs. Roma Mukherjee ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
66. WP No. 10752/2014
Dr. Vijay Kumar Tripathi ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
67. WP No. 10816/2014
Dr. Amit Shukla ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .....Respondents
68. WP No. 11204/2014
Dr. Mrs. Seeme Mahmood ...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
69. WP No. 11206/2014
Dr. Mrs. Anita Deshpande ..........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
70. WP No. 11210/2014
Dr. M Rs. Deepa S. Kumar ............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
71. WP No. 11212/2014
Dr. Sudhir Ranjan Singh ............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
72. WP No. 11213/2014
Dr. R.S. Chandel ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others â¦.....Respondents
73. WP No. 11420/2014
Dr. Makhan Singh Chouhan........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
74. WP No. 11422/2014
Dr. Uday Dolas....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .....Respondents
75. WP No. 11425/2014
Dr. Muneshwar Singh ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
76. WP No. 11950/2014
Ajay Prakash Khare ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
77. WP No. 12101/2014
Dr. Naval Singh ........................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
78. WP No. 12104/2014
Dr. Sunita Tripathi ...................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
79. WP No. 12967/2014
Dr. Mrs. Manjulata Pathak ..........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
80. WP No. 13014/2014
Dr. Hari Krishna Garg ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
81. WP No. 14926/2014
Dr. Rashmi Dubey ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
82. WP No. 15182/2014
Dr. Indu Pandey .......................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
83. WP No. 15703/2014
Dr. Neena Shrivastava ................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
84. WP No. 15707/2014
Dr. (Smt.) Vijay Saxena .............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
85. WP No. 15708/2014
Dr. (Smt.) Rita Sachdev â¦...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
86. WP No. 15712/2014
Dr. (Smt.) Antima Tiwari .........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
87. WP No. 15713/2014
Dr. Govind Prasad Ahirwar..........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
88. WP No. 17472/2014
Dr. Jyoti Martin.......................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others .........Respondents
89. WP No. 468/2015
Dr. Chandramouli Shukla ..........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
90. WP No. 472/2015
Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
91. WP No. 473/2015
Dr. Mrs Archana Sharma ...........Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
92. WP No. 2478/2015
Dr. Sandhya Choubey ...............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
93. WP No. 2479/2015
Dr. Seema Bhargava................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
94. WP No. 2480/2015
Dr. Sunita Mishra....................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
95. WP No. 2775/2015
Dr. Sandhya Pachori................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. & Others ...........Respondents
96. WP No. 469/2015
Dr. Rekha Shukla Pandey...............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents
97. WP No. 469/2015
Dr. Mrs. Mukta Mishra ...............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents
98. WP â 1735/2015
Prof. Dr. Sheela Shrivastava .............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents
99. WP No. 1750/2015
Dr. (Smt.) Varsha Sagorkar ..............Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents
100. WP No. 2780/2015
Dr. Radha Agrawal .......................Petitioner
V.
State of M.P. and Others..................Respondents
=================
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Pathak, Mr. Praveen Verma, Mr.
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Mr. V.K. Shukla, Mr.
Vikram Singh, Ms. C.V. Rao, Mr.Sidharth Seth,
Mr.Pratyush Tripathi and Mr. B.C. Dubey,
Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate
and Mr. Girish Kekre and Mr. Lalit
Joglekar, Government Advocates
==========================
ORDER
(6 .4.2015) In this bunch of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned orders by which the respondents have modified the date of entitlement of the petitioners for grant of Senior Grade/ Selection Grade/ Grade Pay. For the facility of reference, the facts from Writ Petition No.17665/2012 are being referred to.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Commerce on ad hoc basis vide order dated 1.12.1984. Thereafter his services were regularized by an order dated 4.3.1987. The University Grants Commission (in short âthe Commissionâ) issued an order dated 27.7.1998 which deals with the revision of pay scales of teachers in the university and colleges in the light of revision of pay-scales of the Central Government Employees in view of the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. The criteria for grant of selection grade pay-scale was provided in the said order i.e. âminimum length of service for grade of lecturer (Senior Scale)â is four years in case the candidates having P.Hd. degree, five years in case the candidates having M.Phil. degree and six years in case the candidates holding the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade).
3. Thereafter the Commission issued another notification dated 24.12.1998 with regard to revision of pay-scale and minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in the university. The Higher Education Department of State of Madhya Pradesh vide an order dated 11.10.1999 implemented the provisions of the notification dated 24.12.1998 issued by the Commission. Paragraph 8 A of the aforesaid order provides for relaxation of five year working experience for senior selection grade pay scale for the cases stated therein as the same would amount to anomaly and their eligibility would be determined on the basis of total length of service. Paragraph 8 A reads as under:
âofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa LFkkuu gsrq 6 o"kZ ds U;wure lsokdky dh vgZrk gksxhA ih-,p-Mh- rFkk ,e-fQy mikf/k /kkjdksa ds fy, ;g lsokdky dze'k% 4 ,oa 5 o"kZ gksxkA izoj Js.kh osrueku esa LFkkuu gsrq ofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa leku :i ls 5 o"kZ dk lsokdky vfuok;Z gksxkA fo|eku ;kstuk o"kZ 1986 ls ykxw esa LFkkuu gsrq iqujhf{kr ;kstuk ^o"kZ 1996 ls ykxw^ dh rqyuk esa vf/kd lsok o"kksZ dh vko';drk gksrh FkhA vr% mu f'k{kdks ds ekeys esa ftudk LFkkuu 1986 dh ;kstuk ds vk/kkj ij gks pqdk gSA iqujhf{kr ;kstuk ds izoj Js.kh osrueku esa LFkkuu gsrq folaxfr mRiUu djsxsaA ,sls izdj.kksa esa ofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa 5 o"kZ dh lsok dh vfuok;Zrk gsrq folaxfr mRiUu djsaxsA ,sls izdj.kksa esa ofj"B Js.kh osrueku esa 5 o"kZ dh lsok dh vfuok;Zrk ls NwV jgsxhA mudk LFkkuu dqy lsok o"kksZ dh x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij gksxk vFkkZr ih-,p-Mh- /kkjd 9 o"kksZ dh lsok ,oa ,e-fQy /kkjd 10 o"kksZ dh lsokdky gksus ij izoj Js.kh osrueku ds fy, ik= gksxsaAâ
4. The petitioner was given the senior pay-scale vide order dated 21.4.1999 with effect from 4.3.1995. Thereafter by an order dated 2.7.2002 the benefit of selection grade pay- scale was accorded to the petitioner with effect from 2.7.2002. By an order passed in the month of January, 2012 the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade Pay-Scale with effect from 27.7.1998. However, by the impugned order dated 4.8.2012 the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of Selection Grade Pay Scale has been modified from 27.7.1998 to 4.3.2000 on the ground that the mistake crept in the order passed by the Higher Education Department of Government of M.P. with regard to the relaxation granted in respect of five years experience in senior pay-scale has been rectified. Accordingly, by identical orders in all the writ petitions, the date of entitlement of the petitioners for grant of selection/senior grade pay-scale has been modified unilaterally. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the respondents have not taken into account the order dated 11.10.1999 passed by them which has neither been diluted nor rescinded. It is also submitted that the order dated 29.1.2008 providing for clarification in the order dated 11.10.1999 is prospective in nature. It is also submitted that the Commission while framing directions has relaxed the embargo by inserting clause 7.8 in the Scheme and the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
6. Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the compliance with the principles of natural justice would amount to exercise in futility as the petitioners have nothing to say before the authority. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Vivek Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd.
and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 337. It is further submitted that object of compliance with principles of natural justice has two facets, namely, to enable the employee to know the nature of allegations made against him; and to afford an opportunity of hearing to him. In the instant case, the bona fide mistake is sought to be rectified. It is further submitted that in any case the employees can be given post-decisional hearing. It is further submitted that since the amount is paid in excess, the petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to retain the same. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 444 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhhand and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417.
7. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) the Supreme Court after taking into consideration various decisions rendered by it held that the even if by mistake of the employer, the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers the excess payment has been made by mistake or negligence, the excess amount so made could be recovered. The decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) was referred to a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in view of the conflict expressed in the decisions rendered in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18. The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Panjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883, held that the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) in no way is in conflict with the observations made by the Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Sahib Ram (supra) and it was held that an employee cannot retain the amount received by him on account of irregular/wrong fixation of pay even in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that the amount so paid to the employee can be recovered by the employer.
8. However, the moot question which arises for consideration in the case at hand is whether excess amount that has been paid to the employee even in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of such employee can be recovered without compliance with the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are regarded as important procedural safeguard against undue exercise of power by an authority. The chances of an administrative authority taking decision in ignorance of other factors are reduced as if the hearing is given to the person concerned who will bring all the issues involved in the situation. In such a case the decision making authority shall take into account all the relevant facts and issues involved in the decision and would come to a right decision. Thus, the principles of natural justice is considered as an effective method to protect the interest of individual as he can participate in administrative process affecting him.
9. In the case of Nand Kishore Sharma and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 722 the Supreme Court held that having paid the arrears to the employees, the State Government could not have recovered the same without compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice. In the case of State of Karnataka and Another v. Mangalore University Non-teaching Employeesâ Association and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 302 it was held by the Supreme Court that in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not necessarily interfere and set at naught the action taken by an authority. The Court has to consider the genesis of the action contemplated, the reasons thereof and the reasonable possibility of prejudice while considering the effect of violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. In the cases at hand, the petitioner was granted the benefit of senior pay-scale with effect from 4.3.1995 by an order dated 21.4.1999. Thereafter vide an order dated 2.7.2002 the benefit of selection grade was extended to him. Thereafter in January, 2012, the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of selection grade with effect from 27.7.1998. It is pertinent to mention here that the notification dated 24.12.1998 issued by the Commission was adopted by the State Government vide order dated 11.10.1999 which contained clause 8A which deals with exemption with regard to requirement of minimum period of service. Thereafter the State Government issued an order dated 29.1.2008 by which the clause 8 contained in the order dated 11.10.1999 was clarified and it was provided that there shall be no exemption with regard to minimum service of five years in senior pay scale. Thereafter by an order passed in the month of January, 2012, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Senior Grade with effect from 27.7.1998.
11. By the impugned order the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of selection grade pay-scale has been modified from 27.7.1998 to 4.3.2000, admittedly, without compliance of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid order has been modified unilaterally with regard to date of entitlement of the petitioners which would result in adverse consequences i.e. recovery of the amount from the petitioner. Thus, the benefit which was accorded to the petitioners is sought to be taken away without following the principles of natural justice. It is possible for the petitioners to contend that the order dated 29.1.2008 is prospective in nature and does not apply to the case of the petitioner as the benefit has already been granted to him and the said order does not provide for reopening of the cases where the benefit of Senior Grade/ Selection Grade/ Grade Pay has already been extended. In other words, the petitioners have not admitted that any excess amount is paid to them. The petitioners assert their entitlement to the amount in question.
12. The genesis of action contemplated against the petitioner i.e. issuance of the impugned order by which the date of entitlement of the petitioner has been unilaterally modified appears to be 29.1.2008. The said order was issued to clarify clause 8A contained in the order dated 11.10.1999. Undoubtedly the prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the amount is recovered from them without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. The petitioners may have plausible defence to put forth before the authority. However, the same is required to be considered and dealt with by the competent authority.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same are quashed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioners indicating the grounds on which the date of entitlement for grant of Selection Grade/ Selection Grade/ Grade Pay are sought to be modified and to pass a fresh order containing reasons in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of submitting reply to the petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioners and the competent authority would be at liberty to examine the case of the individual petitioner on its own merit.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
(ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE