IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8574 of 2008 Decided on : 7.12.2010 ___________________________________________________________ Laxman Singh Chaudhary … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge.(Oral) The case of the petitioner is that vide Office Order dated 23.10.1998, Annexure A-2, he was granted revised pay scale of Rs. 14300-18150 on and with effect from 1.1.1996. However, later on vide Office Order dated 12.11.2001, Annexure A-1, it was ordered that instead of 1.1.1996 the revised pays scale would be payable from 1.1.1997. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, he has filed the present petition on the following prayers:- “i. Declare this act of the respondent State whereby vide Annexure A 1 i.e office order dated 12.11.2001 the applicant’s placement in the revised pay scale of Rs.14300-18150 has been altered from 17.8.1996 i.e the day on which the applicant completes 14 years of ;regular 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 service to 1.1.1997 without any show cause notice to the applicant and date of increment altered from 17.8.1997 to 1.1.1998 and further the act of respondent State of deducting of an amount of Rs. 1000/- which has now been reduced to Rs.500/- per month from the monthly pay of the applicant in the name of recovery of arrears paid in excess, without any notice to the applicant, show cause or otherwise, in this regard as arbitrary, bad, illegal, discriminatory, violative of the principles of natural justice and hence unconstitutional and quash the same and declare that the applicant is entitled to be placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.14300-18150 as per Annexure A 2 and is also entitled to all consequential benefits. (ii) Direct the respondents to fix the pay scale of the applicant in accordance with Annexure A-2 i.e office order dated 23.10.1998 with all consequential benefits and to pay back to the applicant all amounts deducted by the respondent State from the pay of the applicant with interest at the rate of 18 percent, from the date of deduction to the date of actual payment.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken in para 3:- “3. In reply to this para it is submitted that the pay of the applicant was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs.12000-15500 and Rs. 14300-18150 on completion of 9 years and 14 years of service w.e.f 1.1.1996 and 1.1.1997 at the minimum of Rs. 12000/- and 14300/- in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Finance Department on 23.6.2000 wherein it is very much clear that if the minimum of higher scale is higher than the state arrived at the pay of the applicant shall be fixed at the minimum fo pay scale and next increment in the higher scale is to be allowed after qualifying the service of 12 months, the re-fixation of pay in respect of the applicant 3 was not unilateral but in accordance with H.P. Govt. instructions/clarifications hence the recovery of over payment is also in accordance with the instructions and clarifications issued by the Govt. It is further submitted that there was no need to give show cause notice as neither it was penalty nor it was done on flimsy grounds.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has also been filed. 4. It is manifest from the pleadings on behalf of the parties and the materials on record that before withdrawing the benefit of higher pay scale from the due date i.e 1.1.1996 and making the same applicable from the later date i.e 1.1.1997, neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor he was afforded an opportunity of being heard. Thus, on this score alone impugned Office Order dated 12.11.2001,annexure A-1 is violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, Office Order dated 12.11.2001, Annexure A-1 is quashed with a direction to respondent No.1 to proceed in the matter, if so advised, in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition, so also the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 7th December, 2010. (lsp)