IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 7087 of 2008. Decided on: 17th August, 2010. J.K. Mahindroo. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the respondents are going to re-fix his pay by withdrawing the higher pay scale already granted to him. 2. The respondent-State has filed the reply. Paragraph No. (1) of the preliminary submissions whereof reads thus: “(1) It is respectfully submitted that the present O.A. filed by the applicant is premature, as the application has got no cause of action at this stage. Neither any final order has been passed nor the department has proposed to effect any recovery so far. The respondent department is still to take appropriate action in accordance with law and principle of nature justice as such the applicant has got no right to stop whole of the legal process to be adopted by the department on the basis of just apprehension of recovery.” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 3. In view of the averments contained in paragraph No. (1) of the preliminary submissions of the reply, the respondents can proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, while doing so, the respondents will take into consideration that the pay of other similarly situate incumbents has neither been re- fixed nor any recoveries have been effected from them as per the averments contained in the petition. The respondents shall also take into consideration that the petitioner has already retired from service in the year, 2004 and any adverse order will prejudice his retiral /pensionary benefits. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 17th August, 2010. (bhupender)