IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2298/2008 Decided on: 6.3. 2009 Bishan Dass Sharma. …Petitioner. 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 petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was transferred from District Kinnaur to District Bilaspur vide office order dated 1.9.1987. His pay was also fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200/- by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 13.5.1992. The petitioner was granted benefit of FR 22 (A) (iii) while fixing the pay in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 from 13.10.1987. However, vide Annexure PD, a corrigendum was issued on 1.6.1992 to the following effect: “Corrigendum is issued to this office order No. BLS-EA- 2(130)/87-17376-77, dated 13th May, 1992 that in line No.3, instead of word basic pay Rs. 1200/- p.m. ‘fixed”, it 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 may be read as protected and in the district cadre after reaching at pay of Rs. 1200/- p.m., the date of Annual Increment may be read as 1st January every year as usual.” In sequel to corrigendum dated 1.6.1992 vide office order dated 16.8.1994, the pay of the petitioner was fixed on 13.10.1987 at Rs. 1000/- Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Annexures PD and PE, respectively. This position is not seriously disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. It is settled law that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The pay of the petitioner has been fixed by giving him benefit of 22 FR (A) (iii) by the Deputy Commissioner on 13.5.1992 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 1200/- per month. The petitioner has been visited with a civil consequences after the issuance of Annexures PD and PE since his pay has been reduced from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1000/-. He was required to be heard before the issuance of Annexures PD and PE. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures PD and PE dated 1.6.1992 and 16.8.1994, respectively are quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. No costs. 6.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*