IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:11081/2008 Decided on:20.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Pradeep Kumar Bhota. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The pay of the petitioner was enhanced vide office order dated 23.5.2003. However, the same has been withdrawn unilaterally vide order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure A-3). The petitioner has neither been issued any show cause notice nor he has been afforded ample opportunity of being heard before the issuance of order dated 14.10.2003, Annexure A-3. Further case of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the salary for the vacation period. Since the salary 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 of the petitioner has been reduced, that too, unilaterally, he has suffered civil and evil consequences. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3 dated 14.10.2003 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to pay and release the salary for vacation period to the petitioner in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 415 of 200 decided on 2008. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 20.12.2010 *awasthi*