Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHAGWAN SHUKLA S/O SH. SARABJIT SHUKLA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
5 August 1994
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, FAIZAN UDDIN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 419 · 1994 INSC 299
Also cited as
  • (1994) 6 SCC 154 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted.

p. 419, margin H

Unnumbered paragraph

The controversy in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant who had joined the Railways as a Trains Clerk w.e.f. 18.12.1955 was promoted as Guard, Grade-C w.e.f. 1812-70 by an order dated 27.10.1970. The basic pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs. 190 p.m. w.e.f. 18.12.1955 in a running pay-scale. By an order dated 25th July, 1991, the payscale of the appellant, was sought to be refixed and during the refixation his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 p.m. w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant questioned the order reducing his basic pay with retrospective effect frorr. 18.12.1970 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The justification furnished by the respondents for reducing the basic pay was that the same had been 'wrongly' fixed initially and that the position had continued due to "administrative lapses" for about twenty years, when i< was decided to rectify the mistake. The petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.9.1993.

p. 420, margin A

Unnumbered paragraph

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The ·appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not. even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970.

p. 420, margin C

Unnumbered paragraph

No costs. A.G. Appeal disposed of.

p. 420, margin G