IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10221 of 2008. Decided on: 27.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Beli Ram. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): The petitioner was granted higher pay-scale and his pay was fixed vide Annexure A-4, dated 20th July, 2002. However, the same has been withdrawn vide office order dated 9th January, 2004 (Annexure A-8). The petitioner has neither been issued any show cause notice nor has he been heard before the decision to reduce his pay was taken on 9th January, 2004. Since the pay of the petitioner has been unilaterally reduced, he has suffered civil and evil consequences. The petitioner was required to be heard before the decision was taken to reduce his pay vide Annexure A-8, dated 9th January, 2004. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-8, dated 9th January, 2004 is 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the opportunity was required to be given to the respondents to proceed with the mater in accordance with law. However, in this case since the petitioners has already superannuated in 2005, it will cause immense economic hardship to the petitioner if the respondents are granted the opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, the matter is ordered to be closed. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 27, 2010. (sck).