CWP No. 2031 of 2008 9.11.2010 Present: Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. CWP No. 2031 of 2008 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that two orders Annexure P-5 dated 10.12.2007 and Annexure P-6 dated 30.6.2008 be quashed and set aside. According to the petitioner, both these orders were adverse to the interest of the petitioner, in as much as it reduces his pay scale which, according to him, was correctly fixed vide Annexures P1, P2 and P4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that once the fixation, was made in accordance with the rules, two orders, as challenged in this writ petition, are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as these do not only bring him down in the hierarchy of employees, but the consequences also lead to recovery from his pay, which according to the petitioner was fixed by three orders supra. It is now well settled that any order, which has civil consequences, requires compliance of the principles of natural justice before such order is passed. (See State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei & others, AIR 1967 SC 1269, A.M.S. Sushanth and others vs. M. Sujatha and others (2000) 10 SCC 197, Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. & others, (2000) 7 SCC 90 and M.P. Transport Workers’ Federation Bhopal/State of M.P. and another vs. Rajya Parivahan Maramchari Mahasangh, Ujjain (1998) 8 SCC 484.) In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that Annexures P-5 and P-6, as filed, shall not be given effect to nor shall any consequential recoveries made from the petitioner, unless he has been given a chance of making representation to respondent No. 2, to show that both these orders do not correctly determine the pay scale of the petitioner and that the down grading of his pay is also against the law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that vide Annexure P-7 a detailed representation was made which has not been decided by the respondent. In these circumstances, a direction is issued that respondent No. 2 shall grant an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and to make such representation, supported with documents etc., which he may deem necessary, for the purpose of supporting his contention. Such a representation, when made, shall be disposed of by respondent No. 2, within a period of six weeks by a speaking order. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again, in case of an adverse decision being taken. No order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. November 09, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge