IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2104 of 2008, Decided on: 06.04.2009. S.S. Sarin. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner’s pay was fixed on the basis of Annexure P-E, dated 20.1.1986. He started drawing higher salary. However, vide office order dated 17.6.1988, his pay was re-fixed. In other words his pay was reduced. He made a representation and the same was rejected on 15.12.1992. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. - 2 - It appears from the record that the pay of the petitioner was reduced on the basis of representations made by certain Officers in the Subordinate Accounts Service Cadre, senior to the petitioner. They claimed that their pay should be stepped up equal to the pay fixed for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was not served with any notice before the issuance of Annexure P-B. He then contended that Annexure P-B has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. This position is not refuted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. It is not borne out from the record that the petitioner was heard before the issuance of Annexure P-B. It was necessary for the respondents to hear the petitioner before reducing his pay. Salary is a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been visited with civil consequences. The order i.e. Annexure P-B is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Annexure P-A dated 15.12.1992 and Annexure P-B dated 17.6.1988 are quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the liberty was required to be reserved to the respondent-State to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. However, in the present case, the petitioner had retired in the year 1993 and at this belated stage no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter alive. The learned Tribunal has also restrained the respondents from effecting any recoveries from the petitioner, vide order dated 1.1.1993. The petitioner’s retiral benefits are also based on the pay - 3 - fixed in the year 1986. It will cause immense hardship to the petitioner, if the salary paid to the petitioner is reduced at this belated stage affecting his retiral benefits . No costs. April 6, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 -