IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 10006 of 2008 Date of decision : September 15, 2011 Vinod Kumar Sharma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner has been serving as Assistant Development Officer (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, impleaded as respondent No.1. He had been granted stepping-up and higher pay-scale of ` 10025-15100, vide order, dated 22nd September, 2000, Annexure A-1. Later on, vide order, dated 4th January, 2001, copy Annexure A-2, aforesaid stepping-up and higher pay-scale had been withdrawn in view of some clarificatory notification, issued by the Government, which said that stepping-up and higher pay-scale was permissible only to those officers, who had passed departmental examination and the petitioner, having not passed such examination, was not entitled to the benefit. On 25th July, 2001, letter, copy Annexure A-3, was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… issued for effecting recovery of over-payment, already made on account of benefit of stepping-up. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by orders, Annexures A-2 and A-3 and seeks their quashing. Similar issue had been raised in the case of one Ashwani Kumar Dutta, another Assistant Development Officer (Agriculture). That officer also filed a writ petition, which was registered as CWP (T) No. 8164 of 2008 and was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment, dated 2nd December, 2010. In that case, it was held that the petitioner having not been heard before passing of the order of withdrawal of stepping-up and higher pay-scale, the orders were liable to be quashed. However, the judgment clarified that the respondents could proceed in the matter, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. Since question raised in the present petition is identical to the question raised in the aforesaid case of Ashwani Kumar Dutta, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the operative part of the judgment, dated 2nd December, 2010, rendered in the said case. Consequently, Annexures A-2 and A-3 are quashed and set aside. Respondents may proceed in the matter afresh, in accordance with the rules and instructions, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. September 15, 2011 (Surjit Singh), J (pankaj)