IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.798 of 2010 1. NARAYAN JHA S/O LATE YUGESHWAR JHA R/O VILL- SISHWAR, P.O. SISHWAR BAZAR, P.S. PHULPARAS, DISTT. MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) DEPTT. OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) IRRIGATION MECHANICAL CIRCLE, BIRPUR (SUPAUL) 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) IRRIGATION MECHANICAL DIVISION, BIRPUR (SUPAUL) 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL IRRIGATION (MECHANICAL) OFFICER IRRIGATION MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION NO. 2, BIRPUR (SUPAUL) ----------- 4. 27.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Helper I.T.I. Trained on 31.12.2009. After his superannuation he is stated to have been made aware that his pay scale has been reduced from Rs. 2650-4000 to Rs. 2610-3540/-. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on 1.1. 1974 in the pay scale of Rs.180-242/-. The revision of the pay scale from time to time including the 4th pay revision committee report, time bound promotion inclusive of the revision made with effect from 1.1.1996 led him to the grant of the aforesaid pay scale from 1.1.1996. The counter affidavit encloses an order dated 7.7.2009 reducing the pay scale as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this revision of his pay scale nearly 13 years later was exparte and unilateral visiting him with adverse consequence to the extent that his pension gets reduced and recovery has also been directed. The petitioner finds no reason and justification for such action of the respondents visiting him with serious consequences on the eve of his retirement. It has been specifically mentioned in para 20 of the writ application that this has been done without any notice or opportunity to defend. In para 21 he states that he made specific request by representation dated 22.9.2009 to give him a copy of the order reducing his pay scale which was declined. The respondents in their counter affidavit have chosen not to deny the statements made in para 20 and 21 of the writ petition which therefore stand admitted. At this stage this Court is satisfied that the conduct of the respondents in passing an order stating therein that it was to be communicated to the petitioner, withholding communication suffers from the vice of malafide in law also. The order dated 7.9.2009 is therefore not sustainable in its present form. It is set aside. The recovery made if any is required to be refunded to the petitioner forth with. The law stands well settled for long years that no order to the prejudice of a person having adverse civil consequence can be passed without adequate opportunity to defend. If the respondents insist upon arrogating unto themselves powers which law does not vest them with this Court has no option but to set aside such orders. What has to be done thereafter is for the respondents to decide and not for the Court to advice. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)