Withdrawal of conferred higher labor status without notice violates natural justice and constitutes arbitrary discrimination.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee on Collector Rate since June 5, 2014

On May 10, 2018, the competent authority classified the petitioner as "Skilled Labour" based on his educational and technical qualifications (Higher Secondary, ITI, and Computer Course)

Consequently, his pay was fixed at ₹5,000–8,000

On December 7, 2020, the respondents issued an impugned order reclassifying the petitioner as "Semi-Skilled Labour" and reducing his pay scale to ₹4,500–7,500

This reclassification was done without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a hearing

The petitioner challenged the order, citing a violation of natural justice and discrimination, noting that a similarly situated employee, Prashant Natu, continued to receive Skilled Labour benefits

1. Whether the Municipal Corporation can unilaterally withdraw a previously granted "Skilled Labour" status and consequential pay fixation without affording the employee an opportunity of hearing

2. Whether the State Government Policy dated October 7, 2016, expressly prohibits the re-categorization of an employee from semi-skilled to skilled by a competent authority

3. Whether the impugned order was discriminatory and arbitrary in light of the treatment of similarly situated employees

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a hearing before the withdrawal of a vested service benefit

State Government Policy dated 07.10.2016, which governs the classification and pay scales of daily-rated employees (Sthaikarmi)

The doctrine established in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, which stipulates that the validity of a statutory order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in subsequent affidavits

The court found that the petitioner’s status as a Skilled Labourer was result of a conscious administrative decision by the competent authority after evaluating his qualifications

The respondents' argument—that the 2016 Policy lacked a provision for changing categories—was rejected; the court noted that the absence of a provision for "automatic" upgradation does not equate to an express "prohibition" against the competent authority reconsidering a classification

Since the initial order was not a clerical error but a deliberate decision, it could not be rescinded without proving fraud, misrepresentation, or a violation of express policy terms

The court observed that the respondents failed to provide a show-cause notice, thereby violating natural justice

The court noted that the respondents failed to explain why the same benefit was continued for another employee, Prashant Natu, rendering the action against the petitioner discriminatory

The court quashed the impugned order dated December 7, 2020. The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as a Skilled Labourer effective May 10, 2018, and grant all consequential benefits and arrears within three months. Failure to comply would entitle the petitioner to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the arrears.