Natural justice precludes withdrawing notional pay and seniority benefits through a corrigendum without prior notice.

The applicant applied for the post of Postal Assistant in the Raebareli Postal Division following a 2008 notification

Despite securing 31.84% marks—higher than the lowest General category candidate—she was excluded due to the allegedly illegal placement of a candidate, Atul Kumar, in the General quota

The applicant successfully challenged this in OA No. 450 of 2008, where the Tribunal quashed the selection order on 15.01.2015 and directed the respondents to offer her an appointment

Following an unsuccessful challenge by the respondents in the High Court, the applicant was appointed via order dated 12/14.01.2016, which explicitly granted her notional pay fixation effective from 23.12.2008 (the date of the interim order in the original litigation)

However, on 23.02.2016, the respondents issued a "corrigendum" unilaterally withdrawing the notional seniority and pay benefits, shifting the effective date to 31.12.2015 without prior notice

1. Whether the respondents could unilaterally withdraw a benefit granted in an appointment order through a corrigendum without observing the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional benefits and seniority at par with her counterpart (Atul Kumar) from the same selection panel

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically Audi Alteram Partem, which prohibits taking away vested rights or benefits without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard

The court also referred to the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar, which holds that fresh appointees are entitled to seniority from the year the vacancy relates to, rather than the date of joining, provided they belong to the same recruitment process

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant and Atul Kumar were part of the same selection process and panel

Since Atul Kumar had been enjoying seniority and pay fixation since 2008, denying the same to the applicant—who was only delayed due to the Department's initial illegal placement—would constitute unfair discrimination

The court found that the "remarks" in the initial appointment order dated 12/14.01.2016, granting notional benefits from 23.12.2008, were consistent with the Tribunal’s directions in the previous litigation

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the respondents' attempt to alter these terms via the impugned corrigendum dated 23.02.2016 was done "without putting the applicant to notice," thereby violating the mandatory principles of natural justice and rendering the action "entirely illegal"

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing the impugned corrigendum memos dated 23.02.2016 and directing the respondents to restore and pay the notional benefits based on the original appointment order within two months