IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5306 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 12, 2010 Dr. Narinder Singh Joshan .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders/letters dated 27.8.2008 (Annexure P-7) and 12.9.2008 (Annexure P-8). 2. Perusal of Annexure P-8 indicates that the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala, in accordance with letter issued by the Director Agriculture, Punjab, refixed the pay of the CWP No.5306 of 2009 [2] petitioner to the detriment and prejudice of the petitioner. 3. Annexure P-7 dated 27.8.2008, the other impugned order/letter issued by the Director Agriculture, Punjab, forms the basis for refixation of pay of the petitioner, vide order/letter Annexure P-8. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unilaterally, the pay has been refixed. The petitioner was not given any show cause notice before refixation of pay. Had show cause notice been given before refixation of pay, the petitioner would have given reply so as to bring all the facts to the notice of the respondent authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that indeed no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing Orders/letters Annexure P-7 or P-8. It has however been stated that petitioner filed a representation which has been dealt with. 6. Since it is not in dispute that impugned order, Annexure P-8 issued as a consequence of letter Annexure P-7, was passed without any reference or show cause notice to the petitioner, the impugned orders are clearly illegal. CWP No.5306 of 2009 [3] 7. The petitioner was drawing a particular pay scale which, by virtue of impugned action, has been changed to the prejudice of the petitioner thereby adversely effecting his civil rights. The action has been taken without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Orders/letters Annexure P-7 and P-8 are hereby quashed. 9. It is made clear that if the respondents intend to take any such action, it shall be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The orders passed are required to be reasoned and speaking orders. (AJAI LAMBA) July 12, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?