IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2579 of 2008. Decided on: 06.03.2009. Shri Hari Dutt. … … Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was granted senior scale of Rs.1200-2100 vide office order dated 17.5.1991. He retired on 31st July, 1994. He was served with a memorandum dated 20.7.1994 which he received after his superannuation. The senior scale granted to him was withdrawn vide office order dated 13.3.1995. This has been done on the basis of letter dated 23.9.1991. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that the order dated 23.9.1991 is prospective and the petitioner was served with a show cause notice after his superannuation. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has justified the issuance of the impugned order. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. The petitioner had been granted senior scale on 17.5.1991. He neither mis-represented nor mis-lead the authorities at the time of issuance of order dated 17.5.1991. It was a conscious decision. The same could also not be withdrawn on the basis of letter dated 23.9.1991. Letter dated 23.9.1991 is prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively. He has been issued memorandum on 20.7.1994. He received the copy of the same after his superannuation. He filed reply to the same. However, the reply has not been taken into consideration at the time of issuance of order dated 13.3.1995. The reply filed by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent. He has been visited with civil consequences. The order dated 13.3.1995 is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.3.1995 (Annexure A-4) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from Annexure A-1, dated 17.5.1991. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. March 06, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.