IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7438 /2008 Decided on:7.7.2009 Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. T.C. Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in the State of Punjab on ad hoc basis on 21.3.1979. He worked in this capacity till 9.4.1980. He was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations made by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 10.4.1980. He worked in this capacity till 12.1.1988. Thereafter he was appointed purely on temporary basis with effect from 13.1.1988 to 15.6.1989 as GDO Grade-II in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Commission on 16.6.1989. His past service with effect from 21.3.1979 to 12.1.1988 rendered in the State of Punjab was counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity. He made a representation for the grant of next senior scale of Rs. 3000-4500 after completion of eight years of service on the analogy of other Medical Officers. His representation was sent by the Chief Medical Officer to the State Government on 24.7.1997. He was placed in the time scale of Rs. 3000-100-4000-125-4500 by respondent No.2 on 31.10.1998. However, it was subject to the clarification which was to be sought for from the Government vide letter of even number dated 14.9.1998. The petitioner made representation for counting of his previous services with the State of Punjab for time scale/step up on identical pay scale basis on 15.3.2001. The case of the petitioner was rejected on 21.5.2001 on the ground that he was not entitled for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 and 1998. Mr. Ranjan Sharma appearing vice counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has been placed in the time scale of Rs. 3000-4500 on 31.10.1998. The same was withdrawn without issuing any show cause notice to his client. In other words, his submission is that his client has suffered severe civil and evil consequences and he was required to be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before the decision was taken to reduce his pay. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the decision of the State Government not to count the previous services rendered by the petitioner in the State of Punjab for the grant of senior scale is justified. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 The petitioner has worked initially as Medical Officer on ad hoc basis with effect from 21.3.1979 to 9.4.1980 in the State of Punjab. He was regularized on 10.4.1980. He worked in the State of Punjab up to 12.1.1988. Thereafter he worked in the State of Himachal Pradesh on temporary basis with effect from 13.1.1988 and thereafter on regular basis with effect from 16.6.1989. His previous services have been counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity as per Annexure A-1. He was placed in the time scale of Rs. 3000-4500 by respondent No.2 on 31.10.1998. It appears that the matter remained under consideration of the State Government and finally the petitioner was informed on 21.5.2001 that in view of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 and 1998, he was not entitled to count the previous services rendered with the State of Punjab for time scale/step-up etc. Mr. Ranjan Sharma has argued that his client has not been issued any notice before the rectification of order dated 31.10.1998. This position is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. A decision has been taken to place the petitioner in the time scale of Rs. 3000-4500 by the Director. The petitioner started getting higher salary on the basis of the communication dated 31.10.1998. The order dated 31.10.1998 has been rectified by the respondents without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered severe civil and evil consequences. His pay stood reduced after the rectification dated 31.10.1998. He was required to be heard before the decision was taken to rectify the order dated 31.10.1998. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil 4 consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” In view of the observations made hereinabove, it was necessary for the respondents to hear the petitioner before the rectification of order dated 31.10.1998. The decision of the State Government to rectify the order dated 31.10.1998 without hearing the petitioner is declared arbitrary and null and void. The rectification has been done in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court has not gone into the larger issue at this stage whether the petitioner was entitled to get his previous services rendered in the State of Punjab counted for the purpose of time scale/step up etc. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The action of the respondents to rectify the decision dated 31.10.1998 is quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, as advised. No costs. 7.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*