IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1975 of 2010 1. TRIBHUWAN NATH MISHRA S/O LATE SATYA NARAIN MISHRA R/O VILL PURWA, P.S- HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTT- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WELFARE, MUNGER DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CSTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BEGUSARAI, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CSTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT ACCOUTNS OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, BEGUSARAI ----------- 2/ 12/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against stoppage of salary completely in context of a controversy raised from a source other than the Government authorities of his ineligibility to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as ordered on 24.9.2009 pending enquiry. Learned counsel for the State points out from Annexure-E to the counter affidavit dated 19.2.2010, after filing of the writ petition that orders have been issued for payment of salary at the old pay scale pending decision. Any administrative order to the prejudice of an employee visiting him with adverse civil consequences has to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid pay scale has been paid to him ever since 1.1.1998 till the issuance of - 2 - the impugned order in an ex-parte manner. This law stands well settled and is not a recent enunciation of administrative law. If the respondent authorities insist on arrogating unto themselves powers which the law specifically prohibits, the Court has little option but to set aside such orders. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit acknowledges that no show cause has been given prior to stoppage of salary or direction for a lesser scale pending enquiry. The right to receive salary is a statutory right and can be interfered with only in accordance with law. The petitioner is held entitled to the salary that was being drawn by him from 1.1.1998 before the impugned order came to be issued. The respondents shall be at liberty to serve a show cause notice upon the petitioner which the petitioner is required to reply within such reasonable time as may be granted by the respondents whereafter the respondents shall decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order to facilitate judicial review should the need arise. The impugned order dated 24.9.2009 is quashed. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)