CWP No. 2993 of 2008 18.10.2010 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-12) whereby the pay fixation of the petitioner has been altered without notice to him. It is undisputed before me that at the time when the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Baba Balak Nath Temple his pay was fixed and approved vide Annexure P-3 by the approval of the Himachal Pradesh University. The reason for issuance of Annexure P-12 is that some audit objections have been raised with respect to this pay fixation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that audit objection has since been cleared and draws attention of this Court to Annexure PR-12 in which according to the learned counsel objection, taken in the audit, has been successfully answered by the Committee. I am not entering into this aspect of the case. Needless to say that any action resulting in civil consequences requires compliance of the principles of natural justice. (See State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei & others, AIR 1967 SC 1269.) There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of being heard or to make a representation before the impugned order, Annexure P-12, was passed by respondent No.2. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and Annexure P-12 is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 that he shall hear the petitioner with respect to the pay fixation and then arrive at the decision in accordance with law. For this purpose, the petitioner will be at liberty to make such other or further representation/file documents before the respondents in support of his contentions. It is will be duly considered by the respondents. The respondent shall also take into consideration the fact as to whether the audit department has infact withdrawn the objection or not as indicated in Annexure PR-12. The decision shall be taken by respondent No. 2 within a period of eight weeks from the date when this order is first presented before him. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. October 18, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge