CWP No.2442 of 2009 20.7.2009 Present: Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Government counsel, for the petitioners. CMP No.4790/2009 Allowed. CWP No.2442/2009 The request of the respondent was accepted by the department and she was granted two upgradations i.e. first Rs.6500- 10500 and second Rs.10000-15200 from 19.10.2000, vide office order 17.5.2002 (Annexure P-6). She retired on 31.7.2006. She was drawing the basic pay of Rs.11,625/- in the pay scale of Rs.10000- 15200. A Sanction Memo dated 21.7.2006 was issued by the department, vide which her pension and other retiral benefits were fixed provisionally pending settlement of some audit objection. She assailed the issuance of Sanction Memo dated 21.7.2006 by way of O.A. No.292/HP/2007 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed the original application on 9.1.2009 and quashed the Sanction Memo, dated 21.7.2006. The petitioners have assailed the decision of the learned Tribunal rendered in O.A. No.292/HP/2007, dated 9.1.2009. We have heard Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Government Counsel for the petitioners at length and gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal carefully. Mr. M.A. Khan has vehemently argued that the judgment dated 9.1.2009 rendered by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Tribunal has come to a right conclusion that the upgradation granted to the respondent could not be withdrawn without passing any specific order to that effect and that too without hearing the respondent. The learned Tribunal has also come to the right conclusion that the benefits already granted to the respondent could not be withdrawn on the basis of audit objection. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The respondent has been granted two upgradations on 17.5.2002 and the pension was also fixed by treating her basic pay drawn by her at the time of retirement i.e. Rs.11,625/-. There is neither any infirmity, nor any jurisdictional earror in the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. CMP No.4789/2009 Infructuous. (Jagdish Bhalla), C. J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 20, 2009. (rkv)