Punjab-Haryana High Court
K S Unnikrishnan And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 October, 2016
Author: P.B. Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4374 of 2015
Date of Decision:26.10.2016
K.S. Unnikrishnan and another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
Present : Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
****
P.B. BAJANTHRI J.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) by which second ACP granted to them on 7.3.2011 has been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 7.3.2011, the petitioners were granted MACP with reference to the policy existing for grant of second MACP. Whereas the respondents abruptly passed an order on 12.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) cancelling the order dated 7.3.2011 without issuing notice or heard in the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that order dated 12.11.2013 has not been passed after following due procedure like issuance of notice and obtaining explanation etc. Hence, cancelling grant of 2nd MACP would reduce pay of the petitioners and it has civil consequences. In other words without hearing petitioners adverse order has been passed which is arbitrary.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2016 18:04:42 ::: CWP No.4374 of 2015 -2- Accordingly, order dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) by which the respondents have cancelled order dated 7.3.2011 is set aside.
The petition stands allowed.
The respondents are granted liberty to take action in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioners while issuing show cause notice and reason for not entitlement of second MACP be made known to the petitioners.
26.10.2016 (P.B. Bajanthri)
rajeev Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2016 18:04:43 :::