IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 14013 of 2008. Decided on: 24.02.2011. __________________________________________________________ Sohan Lal. … 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 : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was granted step-up in pay with effect from 2.4.1996 vide office order dated 5th September, 1997 and petitioner’s pay was fixed at ` 2270/- with effect from 2.4.1996 vide letter dated 15th September, 1997. The petitioner was served with a notice by the respondents, dated 28th June, 2006 stating that based on letter dated 6th February, 2006, issued by the Finance Department read with letter dated 21st September, 1999 why the step-up allowed to him be not taken back. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. The case of the petitioner in the reply was that the step-up was rightly granted to him as Shri Inder Ram has joined as Assistant Consolidation Officer w.e.f. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 26.5.1996 and the petitioner has joined as such w.e.f. 26.5.1994. However, vide impugned order dated 10th August, 2006 (Annexure P-4), the step-up granted to the petitioner with effect from 2nd April, 1996 has been withdrawn. The petitioner has filed detailed reply to the show cause notice. However, the same has not been taken into consideration in right perspective while issuing Annexure P-4, dated 10th August, 2006. Once the petitioner has been permitted to file reply to the show cause notice and he has filed reply to the same, the contents of the reply filed by him were required to be taken into consideration. The impugned office order dated 10th August, 2006 is without application of mind and is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-4, dated 10th August, 2006 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have been given opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, since the petitioner has already retired and has not mis-led or misrepresented the authorities at the time of grant of step-up, the matter is directed to be closed. (See Syed Abdul Quadir & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 475). The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. February 24, 2011. (sck).