IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.12487 of 2008 (OA No.155 of 2005) Judgment reserved on: 30.5.2011. Date of decision: 1.6. 2011. Smt. Sneh Lata. …. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.P.Upadhaya, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4. Surinder Singh, J: An Original Application was filed in the year 2005 before the then Tribunal and on its abolishment, it was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T). Succinctly, the present petition has been filed on the premise that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while reducing her pay, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - consequently the pension vide order dated 16th March, 2004 (Annexure A-1). 2. Heard and went through the record. 3. The petitioner was working in the Education Department of the respondents-State, in her capacity as JBT Teacher w.e.f. 7th September, 1964. She retired from the service on 31.12.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The petitioner was promoted as Centre Head Teacher w.e.f. 19.10.2000 and her basic pay was fixed at `8,375/-, but however, under F.R.22 (i) & (ii), it was raised to `8,650/- after allowing the annual increment as on 1.1.2001. Thereafter, the provision of F.R. 22 (c ) was invoked and her pay was further raised to `8,925/- as on 1.2.2001 with next increment on 1.1.2002. Thereafter she earned one more increment and her pay was fixed at `9,200/- per month on 1.1.2002. This pay was fixed from time to time by the competent authority with the approval of higher authorities and lastly, she drew `9,475/- at the time of her retirement, but however, at the time of her - 3 - fixation of the pension by the respondent-Deputy Accountant General (A&E), H.P. (Respondent No.4), it was reduced and was ordered to be recovered from the retiral benefits i.e. retirement gratuity/ pension arrears/ leave encashment etc., without any opportunity of hearing. 5. On the scrutiny of service record of the petitioner, respondent No.4 justified its recovery on the ground that the benefit of F.R. 22 (c ) now F.R. 22 (1) (a)(i) was not admissible on promotion from JBT Teacher to another post (Head Teacher) after 1.1.1996 carrying the same identical pay-scale, as such promotion under 1996 Pay-scales was in the identical scale of `4550-7220. Thus it was in fact no promotion in terms of Government of Himachal Pradesh O.M. dated 11.7.2001 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, the pay was reduced in consonance with the orders of the Government. Accordingly, the pensionary benefits were calculated and respondent No.4 issued the certificate (Annexure A-1) with the advise that in case the post of Head-Teacher is - 4 - declared higher post and the higher pay-scale is given, then case be returned to the said respondent for revision, but no reply was received. 6. The contention of respondents No.1 to 3 is that the pay was correctly re-fixed by respondent No.4 and no benefit can be granted to the employees contrary to the provisions of the rules. 7. Admittedly the 1996 pay-scales were made application w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per Revised Pay Rules, 1998, Clause 2 notified on 1.1.1998. By that time, the petitioner was already promoted as Head Teacher and her pay was fixed higher to that of JBT Teacher, as per Rules applicable at time by the orders of higher authorities. She kept on receiving the higher pay till her retirement in the year 2003 with annual increments as stated above. 8. Even though the scale of JBT teachers and Head-Teacher subsequently became identical by the revision of the pay-scale, but the impugned order does not give any reason. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have given the petitioner an - 5 - opportunity of hearing to clarify her position. In this case, no opportunity of hearing was given before the impugned order was passed to make the representation, against such reduction of the pay. Hence, there is a breach of principle of natural justice. 9. It is a settled law that the pay-scale is a legitimate right of an employee and except for valid and proper reasons, it cannot be varied that only in accordance with law. The order under challenge hardly justify the withdrawal of the existing right accruing in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed and set-aside. 10. The respondents are hereby directed to determine and conclude the monthly pension of the petitioner at `9475/- being the basic pay last drawn by her at the time of her retirement to avoid untold miseries, harassment and hardship to her after such a long time. Thus, it is ordered that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. The amount already - 6 - realized on account of such an order shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the production of this judgment, failing which it shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum from the date of her retirement i.e. 31.12.2003. 11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (Surinder Singh), June 1,2011. Judge. (Pds)