IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 328/2011 Decided on:24.8.2011 _____________________________________________ State of H.P. and another. …Appellants. Versus Amrit Lal and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents: Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). CMP (M) No.1067/2011 Heard. In view of the averments contained in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. LPA No. 328/2011 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.2010 of the learned Single Judge rendered in CWP (T) No. 12780/2008. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the respondents, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, were regularized as Junior Engineers in the pay scale of ` 7220-11660 vide office order dated 9.8.1999. Order dated 9.8.1999 was superseded, vide office order dated 27.12.2005. Respondents filed CWP (T) No.12780/2008 assailing office order dated 27.12.2005. The same has been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 20.7.2010 by making reference to the judgment of this Court in L.C. Bhardwaj versus State of H.P. 2009 (1) Curr. Law Journal (HP) 268. 2. Respondents have not been issued any show cause notice before the issuance of office order dated 27.12.2005. Respondents have suffered civil and evil consequences since their pay scale was reduced from ` 7220-11660 to ` 5800-9200, vide office order dated 27.12.2005. It was also ordered that the earlier promotion to the post of Junior Engineer made on a stop gap arrangement basis will not count towards seniority and pay fixation. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with law. The learned Single Judge has given opportunity to the appellants to 3 take action in accordance with law. However, since the petitioners have neither misled nor misrepresented at the time when they were promoted and put in higher pay scale, no recoveries shall be effected from their salaries as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 24.8.2011 *awasthi*