IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2648/2008 Decided on:24.3.2009 Dhian Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : None for the petitioner. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4, Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was granted senior scale of Rs. 1200-2100 as per order dated 21.2.1991. The senior scale granted to the petitioner was withdrawn vide letter dated 9.12.1992. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate submits that the senior scale paid to the petitioner has been withdrawn on the basis of notification dated 23.9.1991. His further contention is that the senior scale as per the instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh and adopted by the respondent-corporation was payable only on the basis of service record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 In the present case the pay scale has been granted to the petitioner on 21.2.1991. The same could not be withdrawn on the basis of notification dated 23.9.1991. A valuable right had accrued to the petitioner on the basis of order dated 21.2.1991 and the same could not be destroyed on the basis of notification dated 23.9.1991. Notification dated 23.9.1991 was to apply prospectively and not retrospectively. The other ground mentioned for withdrawing the senior scale is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his one increment was stopped with effect from 12.6.1987 to 22.7.1987. This penalty could not be taken into consideration merely on the basis of notification dated 23.9.1991. The requirement of seeing the service record was incorporated for the first time in the notification dated 23.9.1991 and it has to be applied prospectively. The petitioner was also required to be heard before the issuance of letter dated 9.12.1992. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was ever heard before the issuance of letter dated 9.12.1992. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The letter dated 9.12.1992 is quashed set aside. It is made clear that the letter dated 23.9.1991 will apply prospectively. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 24.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*