CWP(T) No. 7241 of 2008. 14.12.2010 Present: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, vice Mr. Madan Thakur, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. G.D.Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined the prayer of the petitioners in the petition for quashing of office order Annexure A-7 dated 8.6.2000, vide which the pay scale and designation of the petitioners were withdrawn to their detriment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact Paras Ram mentioned at Serial No. 25 of Annexure A-7 had separately filed CWP(T) No. 7259 of 2008, assailing Annexure A-7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that CWP(T) No. 7259 of 2008 has been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this court on 29.10.2010. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by judgement dated 29.10.2010 rendered in CWP(T) No. 7259 of 2008. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The judgement dated 29.10.2010 is as follows:- “The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of Annexure A-7, dated 8.6.2000 whereby his salary has been reduced without complying with the principles of natural justice. This position is no more res-integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3, SCC 475 and Uion of India and others versus Jagdish Pandey and others, 2010 (6) Scale 651. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. It is well settled by now that any order which has civil and evil CWP(T) No. 7241 of 2008. consequences, must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 8.6.2000 is quashed and set-aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/ Board to proceed with the matter after following the principles of natural justice. The respondent shall also take into consideration the judgement rendered by this Court in Suresh Rana and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008, decided on 20th April, 2010 while considering the case of the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations/ directions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. No costs.” 2. Since the matter is squarely covered by the judgement dated 29.10.2010 in CWP(T) No. 7259 of 2008, therefore, Annexure A-7 office order dated 8.6.2000, so far petitioners are concerned, is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/ Board to proceed with the matter after following the principles of natural justice. The respondents shall also take into consideration the judgement rendered in Suresh Rana and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008 decided on 20.4.2010 while considering the case of the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. December 14, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.