HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8055/2020 Bahadur Singh Rawat S/o Late Shri Prem Singh Rawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Railway Line, Bheelon Ka Mohalla, Pratapur, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office Pariwahan Marg, C-Shceme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Dy. General Manager (Admn.), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Pariwahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Production Manager, Central Workshop, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta with Mr. Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 29.08.2019 and 11.03.2020 by the petitioner, by which the benefit of annual grade increment has been withdrawn along with pay fixation, by the respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid orders have been passed by the respondents without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel submits that by violating the (2 of 3) [CW-8055/2020] principles of natural justice, the orders impugned have been passed, which are liable to be quashed on this count alone. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was granted appointment on 08.09.2006 and his first increment was due on 08.09.2007, but the same was wrongly given to him w.e.f. 01.07.2007, hence, a decision was taken to withdraw the annual grade increment of the petitioner and pass the order impugned. 4. Without going into the controversy or on the merits and demerits of the case and looking to the fact that the order impugned have been passed by the respondents without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, such action on the part of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. It is settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against a person, authority concerned is supposed to provide him opportunity of hearing, but in the instant case, no such opportunity has been provided to the petitioner, hence, there is utter violation of principles of natural justice in the instant matter on the part of the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be and are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (3 of 3) [CW-8055/2020] 7. Needless to observe that the necessary orders would be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. In view of the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. They stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/53