IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.13774 of 2008. Date of decision: 4.1.2011 Bakshi Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.K.S.Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2006 whereby his pay has been reduced and re-fixed after a period of 10 years. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the Department of Agriculture of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He initially joined service as Surveyor in the year 1984. He was promoted as Junior Engineer on 17.7.1996 and was granted pay in the scale of Rs.1800-3200 and vide order dated 20.10.1996, his pay was fixed at Rs.2060/- w.e.f. 16.8.1996 and at Rs.2090/- 2 w.e.f. 1.9.1996. Thereafter, revision of pay scales took place and the pay of the employees was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the pay of the petitioner was also fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs.7200-11320/-. The petitioner continued to get the pay in this pay scale till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2006. It was after his retirement that the impugned order was passed whereby his pay was reduced. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present petition. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and was passed after he had attained the age of superannuation. There is no allegation that the petitioner ever made any false averments or mis-represented to the Government which led to the passing of the order in his favour. The stand of the State is that by mistake, the scale which was due and payable to the degree holders was paid to the petitioner who only was a diploma holder and not a degree holder. It is well settled law that when any order which has civil consequences is to be passed, notice has to be given to the concerned person. The impugned order in the present case has to be set aside 3 on this short ground that the same has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner. Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General urges that liberty may be reserved to the State to issue notice to the petitioner and take action in accordance with law. Normally, such a prayer would have been accepted but taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that this prayer cannot be allowed. The petitioner, as pointed out above, did not mis-represent to the Government and his pay was fixed by the Department itself. For ten long years, the petitioner was paid the salary without any demur by the Department. After the petitioner retired, the Department woke out its deep slumber and reduced the pay. In view of the fact that the petitioner was paid this salary for 10 years and also in view of the fact that he has now retired and in case the salary is reduced, it shall lead to recovery of salary and pension. I feel that this is not a case where the liberty should be granted to the State to take fresh action. 4 In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the order dated 16.5.2006 is set aside with all consequences. No order as to costs. January 4, 2011 (m) ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge