IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7646/2008 Decided on:24.4.2009 Urmil Thakur and another. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioners : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioners were appointed as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher on contract basis. They were paid house rent allowance, interim relief etc. with effect from May, 1999 to May, 2001. However, vide order dated 10.11.2000, the petitioners were not held entitled to these allowances. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioners before the issuance of Annexure P-3 dated 10.11.2000. He then contended that the petitioners have neither misled/misrepresented the facts nor played any fraud upon the respondents at the time of release of these allowances. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not entitled to these allowances since 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 according to him, he was only entitled to basic scale of Rs. 1200/- fixed plus other allowances i.e. dearness allowance @ 203%. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teachers on contract basis. They were was granted house rent allowance, interim relief etc. as per the details provided in Annexure P-3 dated 10.11.2000. These allowances have been paid to the petitioners by the respondent- State. It is not borne out from the records that the petitioners have ever misrepresented the facts at the time of payment of these allowances to them. There is sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Adarsh Sharma that the petitioners ought to have been heard before the issuance of order dated 10.11.2000. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that since the petitioners were not entitled to these allowances, they were not required to be heard. The Court is of the firm opinion that the order dated 10.11.2000 has visited the petitioners with civil and evil consequences. The petitioners were required to be heard before the issuance of letter dated 10.11.2000. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural 3 justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-3 dated 10.11.2000 is quashed and set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 24.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*