2025:JHHC:11671 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3287 of 2011 --------- 1. Bikrama Pandey, son of Late Deodhari Pandey, resident of Quarter No. DT-556, Sharma Road, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Tara Prasad Singh, son of Late Bachhu Singh, resident of Vikas Nagar, Latma Road, PO: NIFFT, PS: Hatia, District- Ranchi. ....Petitioners Versus 1. Government of India through Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, PO, PS & District-New Delhi through its Assistant Educational Advisor. 2. Assistant Educational Advisor, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Higher Education, Government of India, New Delhi, PO, PS & District- New Delhi. 3. National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology, Hatia, PO: NIFFT, PS: Hatia, District- Ranchi through its Director. 4. Director, National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology, Hatia, PO: NIFFT, PS: Hatia, District- Ranchi. 5. Registrar, National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology, Hatia, PO: NIFFT, PS: Hatia, District- Ranchi. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel --------- 20/Dated:-17.04.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioners praying therein for quashing the order dated 4th May, 2011 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-6) whereby, the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- with Grade-Pay of Rs.4,200/- already fixed for Assistant in National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology (in short ‘NIFFT’) sought to have been superseded arbitrarily and reduced to the Grade Pay of 2025:JHHC:11671 2 Rs.2,800/- without any justification. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has made the following submissions: (I) Since the order impugned (Annexure-6) has been issued; whereby the pecuniary benefit was reduced from Rs.4,200/- to Rs.2,800/-, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; as such, the same is bad in law. (II) In the case of similarly situated employee, the matter went up till Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein during midst of the proceeding, the concerned employee and the management entered into an agreement for giving the benefits to the concerned employee, the details of which is reflected in the order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 2880 of 2024; as such, the case of the Petitioners may be considered by the Respondents in the light of the said order. 4. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, he contended that since the Petitioners have already retired; as such, the concerned Respondent should revisit with its order of reduction of Pay-Scale after giving an opportunity to the Petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the erstwhile post of Assistant has been given Pay Level 5 (7th CPC) which is equivalent to 6th CPC Pay Band-1 with Grade-Pay of Rs.2,800/- in the recently revised Recruitment Rules for the non-teaching posts of the institute vide order dated 19th 2025:JHHC:11671 3 September, 2022. He further contended that the post of Assistant is purely a promotional post; whereas the post of Technical Assistant is filled up by both promotion as well as direct recruitment. He further raised many objections with regard to the claim of the petitioners including the fact that the case of the Petitioners is not similar to that of the employee who went up till the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, he could not dispute the fact that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and after going through the documents available on record, it is crystal clear that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Now, the law is no more res integra that when any order which is leading to a pecuniary loss has to be passed following principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 4th May, 2011 is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law and applicable Rules and Regulations after giving opportunity of hearing to these Petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the case; however, since the Petitioners are senior citizens; as such, the entire exercise of passing a fresh order after 2025:JHHC:11671 4 giving proper opportunity to the Petitioners, shall be completed by within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-