IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.9059 of 2008. Decided on: 22.12.2010. Jai Ram Kamal. ……….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. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Tek Chand Sharma,Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was placed in the higher pay scale. However, vide Annexure A-1 dated 18th April, 2002 the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 87,238/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before issuance of Annexure A-1 dated 18th April, 2002. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences since the recovery has been ordered to be effected amounting to Rs. 87238/- without hearing the petitioner. 2. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-1 dated 18th April, 2002 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have been given an opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has already retired, it will cause immense economic hardship to the petitioner if the proceedings 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. are permitted to be continued. Accordingly, the proceedings are closed. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 22, 2010. (krt) 2