1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3118/05 Narayan Lal Dhabai Vs. The Comptroller, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Ors.) Date of Order : 08/02/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. S.P.Arora for the petitioner. Mr. G.R.Punia for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the petitioner is that his last pay drawn was raised to Rs. 10,475/- and on the basis of which the computation of pension and other benefits were to be calculated. The computation was made by Annex.5 amounting to Rs. 1,91,060/- and subsequently it revealed that the petitioner was paid the less amount then the one computed by the respondents, for which the petitioner sent a notice Annex.7 and the reduction in the salary and pension have been made without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Hari Ram Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, 2006 2 (1) WLC (Raj.) 288 wherein this Court held that the revision of pay and reduction in pension entails evil and civil consequences on the petitioner therein, but before passing the order reducing the pension and fixing the same and revising the pay scale of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner and therefore, held that the order impugned therein were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and were liable to be quashed and set aside on that ground alone. While allowing the writ petition, the orders impugned were quashed and set aside and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from the date of the order and the concerned authority was directed to consider and decide the same in either way in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of the said representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, may be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the decision of this Court in Hari Ram Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology (supra) I deem it proper to set aside the order impugned 3 Annex.6 dated 30.1.2003. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is not a case of reduction of pay but it is a re- fixation of salary in the pay applicable to the petitioner, since earlier fixation was wrongly made. Be that as it may, since the matter is being remitted to the authorities for deciding the representation, it will be open for the respondents to take into account their stand while deciding the representation. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.1.2003 Annex.6 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within 15 days from today and the concerned respondents are directed to consider and decide the same in either way in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of the said representation and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, may be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp