IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7523/2008 Decided on:17.4.2009 Om Parkash. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.no. For the petitioner : Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was granted the senior scale in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2400 with effect from 1.12.1988. His pay was re-fixed. The seniority list on the basis of which the petitioner was granted the senior scale was assailed by some officials of the Department before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The seniority list of Patwaris was revised and final seniority list of Patwaris up to 30.9.1993 was circulated on 22.9.1995. In the revised seniority list the petitioner stood at Sr. No. 482 instead of Sr. No. 447. Consequently, the senior scale granted to him was reviewed. He was granted senior scale of Patwari with effect from 31.8.1990 instead of 1.12.1988 as per letter dated 1.2.1996. His pay was re-fixed in the senior scale with effect from 31.8.1990 on 27.9.2000. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before re-fixing his pay on the basis of Annexure A-1 dated 27.9.2000. This argument is not refuted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. He, however, has contended that the senior scale granted to the petitioner was revised after the judgment of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 7.9.1993. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was granted the senior scale of Patwari on 1.12.1988 and his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2400. The same was revised on the basis of letter dated 1.2.1996. The petitioner has admittedly not been issued any notice before the issuance of letter dated 1.2.1996. The petitioner has suffered severe civil consequences since his pay was revised with effect from 1.12.1988 to 31.8.1990. The petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the facts at the time when the senior pay scale was granted to him on 1.12.1988. It was necessary for the respondents to hear the petitioner before his pay was revised in the year 1996. In fact, his pay has been reduced vide letter dated 27.9.2000. The petitioner has already spent the money, which he has earned with effect from 1.12.1988 to 31.8.1990. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A dated 27.9.2000 is quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. No costs. 17.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*