IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 14053 of 2008. Decided on 24.02.2011. _____________________________________________________ Jeet Singh. …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. : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was granted higher pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme as per office order dated 9th March, 2005. His name figures at Sr. No. 5. He has been given higher pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996/01.08.2001 with next date of increment as 01.01.2005. However, notification dated 9th March, 2005 has been modified without hearing the petitioner vide office order dated 30th May, 2006. Petitioner’s pay was fixed on the basis of order dated 9th March, 2005 and he started drawing the higher salary. In case the earlier office order dated 9th March, 2005 was to be modified, the petitioner ought to have been heard. The salary is a property within the meaning of Article 304-A of the Constitution of India. It cannot be varied/altered/reduced, except in accordance with law. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, dated 30.05.2006 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that if any recovery has been effected on the basis of Annexure P-2, dated 30.05.2006, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. While deciding the matter afresh, the respondents shall also take into consideration the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 24, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `