IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15501 of 2010 SMT.CHANDRA PRABHA KUMARI &ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioners: M/s Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Mandal, B.S.Mishra & Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, AC to AAG 2 ------ 2. 15.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners question the order dated 30.8.2010 cancelling the order dated 7.12.2009 granting them 5th pay revision revised pay scale of RS. 4500-7000/-. It is submitted the posts of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk were merged with effect from 1.5.1980. The petitioners were appointed thereafter in between 1988 to 1993. The de-merger was then ordered on 28.9.1999. There is more than one order of the Court that those given a pay scale of Accounts Clerk after merger do not stand deprived of the same by the subsequent de-merger. It is next urged that the order having civil consequences is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The first issue urged on behalf of the petitioners need not detain the Court any further to require filing of a counter affidavit at this stage as the writ petition can easily be disposed off on another issue preliminary for the present. The order dated 7.12.2009 granting the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- was based on certain orders of this Court read in - 2 - conjunction with certain circulars of the Finance Department as mentioned in the order. It is apparent from a bare reading of the order itself that it is based on application of mind on the aforesaid materials. Once the benefit has been granted to the petitioners, communicated to the Treasury with a consequent direction for revision of the pay scale within three days and to report compliance, a right has accrued to the petitioners. To deprive them of the same shall be visiting them with adverse civil consequences. Counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the order dated 30.8.2010 that it was issued after a show cause notice to the petitioners as to why order dated 7.12.2009 be not recalled. Counsel for the State further finds it difficult to satisfy the Court from the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 of the reasons why the authorities were of the opinion that the order dated 7.12.2009 was erroneous. There is no discussion in the impugned order of the circumstances under which the authorities were satisfied after consideration of the Court’s order and Finance Department circular to grant the benefits and what transpired in their mind subsequently to conclude that their own decisions were wrong. Time and again the Courts have held that any administrative order having adverse civil consequences is required to be reasoned. It is but a facet of the principle of natural justice controlling arbitrariness and facilitating judicial review. - 3 - Whether it be the failure to issue a show cause notice or pass a reasoned order, on both counts the order dated 30.8.2010 is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. If the respondents so desire they shall be at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners, consider the objections filed by them and then dispose the same by a reasoned and speaking order. Any recovery already made in pursuance of the order dated 30.8.2010 shall necessarily have to abide by such fresh adjudication. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)