IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. Nos.1394, 1395 & 1408 of 2002 Date of decision: 19.6.2008 1. CWP No. 1394 of 2002 H.P. State Forest Corporation and another ..Petitioners Versus Shiv Ram and another ..Respondents 2. CWP No. 1395 of 2002 H.P. State Forest Corporation and another ..Petitioners Versus Besaria Ram and another ..Respondents 3. CWP No. 1408 of 2002 H.P. State Forest Corporation and another ..Petitioners Versus Shiv Ram and another ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? YES For the Petitioners: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate Per R.B.Misra, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. All the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since the common question of law and facts arises in all these writ petitions. 3. For convenience the facts and circumstances as indicated in CWP No. 1408 of 2002 are appreciated. In the order dated 18th June, 2002 passed by learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1267 of 1995 has been challenged in the present writ petition. In O.A. the order dated 1.6.1995 passed by the General Manager, H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. was challenged, whereby, the previous orders in respect of pay fixation, upgradation and seniority in reference to private respondent were superseded and pay scale of private respondent. was re-fixed w.e.f. 1.8.1979 to 1.3.1995 retrospectively and consequent upon recovery was to be made from private respondent. Learned Tribunal has acknowledged that the private respondent was initially engaged as daily rated worker in 1971 in the Forest Department and was promoted to the post of helper fitter/mechanic vide letter dated 24.4.1981 and was further promoted as skilled worker (fitter) w.e.f. 7.6.1985 and was confirmed as fitter w.e.f. 7.6.1987. It appears, in the prevailing facts and circumstances the petitioners have passed the order dated 1.6.1995 which was challenged on the ground that the order was passed without giving show cause notice, behind the back of private respondent and the monetary benefits and the scale which has accrued to the respondent was taken back without affording him opportunity of hearing. 3 According to private respondent, his salary, pension, gratuity were affected and re-fixation of salary was not correctly made. Learned Tribunal though has not analyzed the order dated 1.6.1995 exhaustively, however, the same was set aside on the ground that it was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the private respondent. Learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 154 ; Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur and others Vs. L.N. Kashri and others AIR 1974 SC 1889; Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India 1994(2) SCC 521; Union of India and others Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and others (1994) 5 SCC 450; Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and has held that right accrued to an individual cannot be taken away retrospectively and since the private respondent has received the basic salary and upgraded salary and other consequential benefits, therefore, his right cannot be taken away retrospectively. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that consequent upon passing of the impugned order dated 18th June, 2002, the petitioners have sympathetically considered the grievance of private respondent and other similar situated persons and keeping in view the prayer made in the representations subsequent fresh decisions have been taken. However, it has been asserted before this court by learned counsel for private respondent that he is still not satisfied with 4 the subsequent order having been passed on his representation. Be that as it may, subsequent event at this stage cannot be considered for adjudicating and testing the legality of the impugned order dated 18th June, 2002. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the pleadings, contents and the materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that learned Tribunal has rightly set aside the order dated 1.6.1995, impugned in O.A. No. 1267 of 1995 on the ground that the same has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to private respondent. However, it goes without saying that the petitioners were and are always at liberty to take subsequent decision keeping in view the claim and representation of private respondent and other similar situated persons. To this extent the order dated 18th June, 2002 is modified and all the above mentioned writ petitions are disposed of with an observation that the petitioners are at liberty to consider the grievances and representation of private respondent or other similar situated persons and may, after hearing and affording opportunity of hearing to them, pass appropriate order keeping in view the applicability of byelaws and Rules framed by the H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. . The earlier decision taken by the petitioners at the instance of private respondent and the other similar situated persons and brought before this court vide Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3, enclosed in civil miscellaneous petition No. 1230 of 2008 in CWP No. 1394, civil 5 miscellaneous petition No. 1231 in CWP No. 1395 of 2002 and civil miscellaneous petition No. 1229 of 2008 in CWP No. 1408 of 2002 shall not come in the way in taking a fresh decision by the petitioners. However, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims of the parties as the petitioners may take decision on merits on the basis of the materials placed before them. 6. The writ petition No. 1408 of 2002 is disposed of in view of the above observations. The other two writ petitions No. 1394 of 2000 and 1395 of 2002 are also dealt with and disposed of on the same terms accordingly. ( R. B. Misra ), J. June 19, 2008(K) ( Sanjay Karol ), J.