IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17332 of 2009 Abhay Kumar Singh & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 19/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2009 cancelling the benefit of A.C.P. given to them earlier by order dated 13.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the scale was granted to them in consonance with the amendment made to the A.C.P. Rules in the year- 2008. There is no infirmity in the order dated 13.4.2009 which is otherwise well considered and refers to more than one circular of the Finance Department to hold that the petitioners were eligible for the same. Though A.C.P. has been granted with retrospective effect, no financial benefits have accrued for arrears, but the petitioners did receive the enhanced further salary. Before they could be deprived of the benefit and visiting them with adverse consequences, they were required to be heard. Additionally, the order dated 13.11.2009 does not spell out any reasons or consideration why the order dated 13.4.2009 was wrong. Learned counsel for the State invites the attention of the Court to paragraph-8 of the counter 2 affidavit that the Finance Department had opined that the pay scale given to the petitioners by way of A.C.P. was not admissible. If the order dated 13.4.2009 granting the A.C.P. was reasoned, any order for its cancellation had to be reasoned also. The impugned order dated 13.11.2009 bears no reasons why and how the circulars of the Finance Department referred to in the order dated 13.4.2009 were not relevant and how the benefit came to be granted erroneously. The petitioners were then required to be given an opportunity to show cause before depriving them of the benefit. The counter affidavit simply states at paragraph-8 that the Finance Department had opined on a query made that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit. If the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 could have been supplemented in the counter affidavit with reasons, the counter affidavit is of no help to the respondents. It does not deal with, discuss or explain by reference to the circulars of the Finance Department dated 25.6.2003, 28.1.2008 and 22.2.2008 referred to in the earlier order dated 13.4.2009 why the order was wrong. In fact, the counter affidavit is completely silent with regard to the same. The factual position emerging is that the benefit is granted to the petitioners under 3 certain circulars of the Finance Department and it is withdrawn on the opinion of the Finance Department without reference to the earlier decision based on the guidelines of the Finance Department itself. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the decision whether the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale given or not. The Court is concerned with the decision making process. For reasons of the discussion contained in the preceding paragraph the Court is satisfied that the impugned order 13.11.2009 suffers from gross infirmity in the decision making process when it ignores relevant materials contained in the earlier order dated 13.4.2009 in arriving at a fresh decision. The order dated 13.11.2009 is accordingly set aside. Nothing precludes the respondents from giving a show cause notice to the petitioners and after giving them an opportunity of hearing, to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order to their satisfaction dealing with all aspects of the matter including the grounds mentioned in the order dated 13.4.2009. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)