CW 5974/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5974/2006 Ram Avtar Sharm Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 16/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Yogesh Kr. Sharma, for petitioner. Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents-State Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that his pay scale fixed vide order dt.26/07/79 in pay scale of 370-10-410 extending benefit U/r 26-A of Rajasthan Civil Services (“R.S.R.”) duly fixed at Rs.610/- in pay scale of 500-10-550-15-640 as on 01/09/81 under Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1981 was revoked after three years of retirement of petitioner from service detrimental to his interest vide order dt.15/06/06 (Ann.2) without due compliance of principles of natural justice. After serving the respondents Department on various posts, petitioner finally retired from service in April, 2003 while holding post of Sector Supervisor (SMPW). However, vide order dt.15/06/06 (Ann.2) his basic pay of Rs.610/- fixed long back on 01/09/81 was revised prejudicial to his interest at Rs.550/- which certainly makes consequential revision in subsequent fixation and will affect his terminal CW 5974/06 //2// benefits, as well. Counsel submits that before passing impugned order (Ann.2) no opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner and action of respondents is certainly in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel further submits that almost after 25 years of his fixation made in revised pay scale Rules, 1981, it has been unilaterally revised, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. In their reply, respondents have tried to satisfy this Court that in the year 1969, when he was posted as F.P.H.A., it was not his promotion but was adjusted/absorbed against post of AHPA; as such, he was not entitled for benefit of R.26A of RSR and so also the revision made in pay scale under Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1981 at Rs.610/- was erroneous and in fact, was entitled to be fixed in pay scale of Rules, 1981 at Rs.550/-. Government Counsel submits that if at all there was an error being committed , that can always be rectified at any later stage and the delay as alleged would not come in the way of the authority in rectifying mistake, respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order after due compliance of principles of natural justice. CW 5974/06 //3// But, nothing has come forward in the reply of respondents in respect of notice, if any, served upon petitioner before passing the order impugned (Ann.2). Fixations were made in revised pay scales from time to time and particularly as on 01/09/81, petitioner was fixed at Rs.610/- while holding post of FPHA and while holding post of SMPW in April, 2003, he stood retired from service and certainly all subsequent revisions of pay scales were made and were accordingly paid consequent upon fixation of pay made under Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1981, and if at all there was any error or audit objection, it could not have been rectified without due compliance of principles of natural justice, action of respondents impugned cannot be said to be legally sustainable under law. However, in facts of instant case, where fixation was made long back as on 01/09/81 and almost 25 years have now rolled by and petitioner stood retired from service in April, 2003, all fixations in revised pay scales were made from time to time and accordingly he was also paid his terminal benefits; thus in the opinion of this Court even calling upon petitioner through notice at this belated stage may also cause prejudice to him particularly when there was no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.15/06/06 (Ann.2) is quashed & set aside. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/5974CW06-16Jn.doc