IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7702/2008 Decided on:24.4.2009 Hem Raj Sharma and others. …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. Aswani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioners were appointed as a Junior Basic Trained Teachers on contract basis. They were paid dearness allowance @ 32% which was revised to 37%. However, the same was withdrawn on the basis of letter dated 10.11.2000. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioners before the issuance of Annexure A-1 dated 10.11.2000. He then contended that the petitioners have neither misled/misrepresented nor played any fraud upon the respondents at the time of release of the dearness allowance. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioners were not entitled to the dearness allowance since they were appointed on contract basis. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teachers by the respondents. They were granted dearness allowance @ 32% which was revised to 37%. This dearness allowance has 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 the dearness allowance to them. There is sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Ashwani Pathak that the petitioners ought to have been heard before the issuance of order dated 10.11.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that since the petitioners were not entitled to the dearness allowance, 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 A-1 dated 10.11.2000 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from effecting the recoveries of the amount paid to the petitioners. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 24.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*