IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4472 of 2010. Date of Decision: 18.5.2011. Bhup Singh Rana … Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Keshav S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Add. AG. For Respondent No.5: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the basic challenge of the petitioner is to the action of the respondents whereby his pay has been reduced from Rs. 14,300/- to Rs. 12,750/- in the pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150/-. 2. It is not disputed that after the revision of the pay-scales, the pay of the petitioner was initially fixed at Rs. 14,300/- and he in fact drew the scale of pay for more than 2 years. Thereafter it appears that an order was passed on 17.10.2000 whereby the pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 14,300/- to Rs. 12,750/-. According to the petitioner, this order was never communicated to him and he came to know about the same for the first time vide communication Annexure P1 which was sent to him in January, 2003. Consequent to this communication Annexure P1, a sum of Rs. 1,48,814/- was deducted from his retiral benefits, because the petitioner had already superannuated from service. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged this order. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : 3. The stand of the State is that consequent to the revision of the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the pay of the petitioner was initially fixed at Rs. 14,300/- on 1.9.1998 by the Assistant Director, Animal Health/Breeding, Mandi, District Mandi, HP at his own level. Further stand of the State is that the re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner had been done without obtaining the clarification from the State Government. According to the State, the higher pay scale could only be given to those employees whose overall service record is adjudged as good and against whom no vigilance enquiry was conducted and no departmental action was pending. According to the State, at the relevant time a vigilance enquiry was pending against the petitioner and in fact the petitioner was later convicted by the learned Trial Court for having committed an offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) readwith 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and, therefore, he was not entitled to the said pay scale. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of conviction and this Court vide its judgment dated 1.3.2011 has acquitted the petitioner/accused. The acquittal of the petitioner/accused means that he has been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. Once he is acquitted, he would be entitled to the higher pay scale. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent-State is directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 14,300/- and grant him all consequential benefits including fixation of pension, DCRG, leave encashment etc. etc. All : 3 : the monetary benefits due and payable to the petitioner be paid to him on or before 30th November, 2011, failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.3.2011 when the petitioner was acquitted by this Court. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 18th May,2011. (Krn guleria)