IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1450 of 2009 Ganesh Lal Das & Anr . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 05.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2008 issued by Respondent no.4, the Collector Madhubani, reducing their pay scale from Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 to 8.8.1999 and simultaneously directing recovery of the allegedly excess salary paid. . A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have superannuated from the post of Head Clerk on 31.7.2000 and 31.12.1999 respectively drawing the last pay in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The impugned order has been passed after the master servant relationship has stood severed. The petitioners specifically allege violation of the principles of natural justice before issuance of the impugned order. At this stage the Court is not concerned with the legality of the order of reduction but the propriety of the manner in which it has been done. An order reducing the pay scale with retrospective effect and directing recovery of the payments already made has adverse and civil consequences on the individual concerned. No order to the prejudice of a person can be passed without due opportunity to defend the benefit already made available. This requirement of the law applies whether the relationship between the parties of master and servant subsists. The parties are admitted to have parted ways in the legal position that may have existed on the date of superannuation. If allegations of fraud and misrepresentation had been 2 made it may be an entirely different matter. Presently there are no such allegations. The order dated 12.11.1999 granting the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- refers to specified circulars of the Finance Department. The impugned order reducing the pay scale refers to absence of approval from the Finance Department. Both orders draw sustenance from the Finance Department. The order reducing the pay scale does not deal with or consider the earlier resolution of the Finance Department mentioned in the order granting enhanced pay scale even. At this stage no other discussion is required to hold non application of mind. The counter affidavit of the respondents is hardly helpful in resolving the controversy between the issues of the Finance Department. Both orders granting pay scale and reducing the pay scale are drawing sustenance from the circulars of the Finance Department. Had the impugned order discussed or distinguished the Finance Department circulars on basis of which the enhanced pay scale was granted, the petitioners had been given opportunity to meet the same the matter may have been quite different. To the contrary, Annexure A to the counter affidavit itself states that resumption of the enhanced pay scale was under consideration. What may or may not happen thereafter is not concern of the Court at this stage. Suffice it to notice from Annexure ‘A’ that the impugned order cannot be said to have attained finality at this stage and the question of its implementation does not arise so long as final decision is not taken in pursuance of Annexure A. The Court therefore formally declares that the impugned order dated 7.1.2008 is not enforceable at this stage, and stands set aside on the own showing of the respondents. 3 All other questions raised by the petitioner are left open to be agitated, if necessary, at a later stage. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)