IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4478 of 2008 (OA No.1428/1997) Date of Decision : May 12, 2009 K. C. Agarwal …petitioner Versus: H. P. State Electricity Board …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mrs. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 15.7.1993 (Annexure A-1) and 11.2.1994 (Annexure A-6). Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer with the respondent-Board. Vide office order dated 15.7.1993 (Annexure A-1), his pay was fixed at Rs.1400 + 53 paise in the pay-scale of Rs.1000-1850 w.e.f. 1.1.1978, in the selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1978 at Rs.1700/- per month, on promotion as on 24.2.1978 was fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs.1400-2100 at Rs.1775/- per month under FR 22(a)(i), with upward revision in the pay scale on different dates. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 However, vide office order dated 11.2.1994 (Annexure A-6), benefits under F.R. 22 (a)(i) were withdrawn. Further as per office order dated 11.5.1994 (Annexure A- 10), petitioner’s pay was re-fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs.3000-5600 w.e.f. 1.2.1985 but, however, the benefits of FR 22 (a)(i) were not accorded to him. Noticeably, benefits of F.R. 22-C were accorded to him only w.e.f. 1.2.1989. Admittedly, downward revision of the petitioner’s pay- scale entails civil consequences. The revision of the pay-scale is subsequent to the petitioner’s retirement. He has not been afforded with any opportunity of hearing/representation and no notice was ever issued to him. Vide representation dated 18.4.1989 (Annexure A-8), petitioner had exercised his option, conditionally. The respondents have not taken any action on the petitioner’s representation, hence, it cannot be contended that the downward revision of the pay scale in terms of Annexure A-10 is pursuant to the option exercised by the petitioner. In these circumstances, orders dated 15.7.1993 (Annexure A-1), 11.2.1994 (Annexure A-6) and 11.5.1994 (Annexure A- 10) are quashed with the directions that the respondents shall take a fresh decision after issuing a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner. Necessary action shall be taken within a period of three months from today. Consequential retiremental benefits/arrears, if any, shall be released immediately thereafter, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. 3 The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 12, 2009 (rana)