IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3729/08 [OA (D) 375/96] Date of Decision: March 24, 2009 Sh. Gulzar Mohammed Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary(Home) to the Govt. of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (1) That the respondents may kindly be directed not to reduce the pay scale from Rs. 950-1800 to Rs. 770-1350. (2) The operation of letter Annexure A-4 and A-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside after declaring it void ab initio. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The matter was heard for some time when Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the order dated 16.11.1996 (Annexure A-4) he had made a representation dated 22.11.1996 (Annexure A-7) clearly explaining the circumstances entitling him for the benefits of higher pay scale, that is, Rs. 950-1800, which at one point of time stood granted to him. The respondent vide a decision dated 5.12.1996 (Annexure A-8) has rejected the same by passing the following order:- “Subject: REGARDING PAY FIXATION. Regarding letter No. 48182, dated 16.11.96 on the above subject and furnished by on 22/26.11.96 has been considered by the undersigned keeping in view the guidelines issues by the Police Headquarters and the H P Government your representation is hereby rejected.” The bare perusal of the said order would show that the contentions raised by the petitioner in, Annexure A-7, have not been considered and decided at all. Infact the aforesaid order is non- speaking and non-reasoned one. The factors which weighed with the authorities in taking the decision has not been conveyed to the petitioner either. The order being un-reasoned, it is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice hence on this short ground alone Annexure A-8 is quashed. The erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide orders dated 17.12.1996 had directed that recovery in terms of Annexures 3 A-4 and A-5 be not given effect to till further orders. The interim order continues to be in operation till today. In this view of the matter the respondents shall not affect recovery pursuant to Annexures A-4 and A-5 till the decision of appeal by the appropriate authorities. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners representation, in accordance with law, by affording due opportunity of hearing/representation and pass a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks from today. It shall be open for the petitioner to submit all additional material within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to add same shall be considered by the authorities before passing the order. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 24, 2009 (PK)