CWP(T) No. 12016/2008 20.07.2010 Present: Mr. S. R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in S. K. Singhal v. State of H.P. 2010(I) Himachal Law Reporter (DB) 245. The facts according to the learned counsel are almost similar. In terms of impugned order dated 30.5.2005, petitioner’s salary has been re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986. As a consequence of such re-fixation his salary has been reduced from Rs.9200/- per month to Rs.8375/-. This admittedly has been done without serving any show cause notice and also after a period of 19 years. Admittedly, petitioner had retired prior to the passing of the impugned order. There was no fault of his in fixation of higher pay and emoluments. The entries in the service book correctly recorded his pay. The impugned order does not reflect the cause, reason or justification for reducing the pay. Petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the fact at the time when his pay was fixed prior to the order dated 30.5.2005. He has suffered civil consequences. The facts being similar, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in S. K. Singhal (supra). As such the impugned order dated 30.5.2005 is quashed. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. July 20, 2010 (rana)