IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8291 of 2008. Decided on: 27.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Lata Malhotra and another. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioners were working as Class-IV in the respondent- department. They were promoted to the post of Technical Bearer vide office order dated 2nd July, 2001. They were put in the pay-scale of ` 2720-4260. They started discharging their duties on the promotional post. However, vide office order dated 6.3.2002 the office order dated 2nd July, 2001 has unilaterally been withdrawn. Once the petitioners have been promoted on regular basis to the post of Technical Bearer, they ought to have been heard before the decision was taken to the detriment of the petitioners by reverting them to the lower post. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - petitioners were required to be heard before issuance of office order dated 6.3.2002. They have suffered civil and evil consequences since their status and salary has been reduced. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2, dated 6.2.2001 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 27, 2010. (sck).