IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2334/2008 Decided on:10.4.2009 Deep Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate vice Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J.(oral) The pay scale of the petitioner was revised on the basis of notification dated 3rd April, 1991. His pay was fixed on 6.7.1991 (Annexure A-3). However, vide office order dated 16.12.1992, his pay was reduced. He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 759/1993. The learned Tribunal directed the application to be treated as a representation to the Secretary (Health) vide order dated 4.5.1993. The representation was rejected by the Secretary (Health) on 4.6.1994. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was not heard before the issuance of office order dated 16.12.1992. This position is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, however, he has submitted that the pay of the petitioner was reduced on the basis of corrigendum issued on 12.4.1991 as reflected in Annexure A-6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. A conscious decision had been taken by the State to revise the pay scale of the petitioner and other categories contained in notification dated 3.4.1991. His pay was subsequently fixed on 6.7.1991. The office order was issued on 16.12.1992 whereby his pay was reduced. He was not heard before the issuance of this order. The office order has visited the petitioner with civil consequences since his pay has been reduced. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It may be true that the corrigendum has been issued by the State on 12.4.1991; still the petitioner was required to be heard. He could justify the revision of pay scale on the basis of notification dated 23.4.1991. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural 3 justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 16.12.1992 (Annexure A-4) and 4.6.1994 (Annexure A-6) are quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the opportunity was to be granted to the respondents to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. However, Mr. K.B. Khajuria has informed the Court that the petitioner has retired from service during the pendency of the petition and his pension was fixed on the basis of Annexure A-3 dated 6.7.1991. Accordingly, taking into consideration the passage of time and retirement of the petitioner during the pendency of this petition, it would be harsh/oppressive to keep the matter alive. The matter stands closed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 10.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*