IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5528 of 2008 Decided on: 30.07.2010 Vijay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner. : None. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2 , whereby the pay of the petitioner has been reduced. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of impugned order. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. 2. 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 ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. 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. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- (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 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.” 3. Accordingly, the impugned orders Annexures A2 and A3, dated 30.8.1997 and 7.11.1997 respectively, are quashed and set aside. However, taking into consideratrion that the petitioner is at the fag end of his service career, the proceedings shall be closed. 3. In the light of above, the petition stands disposed of . No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge July 30, 2010 (K. Attri)