CWP 1581 of 2008 09.09.2010 Present: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Vide Annexures P1 to P3 the pay of the petitioners has been down graded from Rs. 4020/- per month to Rs. 3440/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges two points for consideration of this Court. Firstly, he submits that this down grading of the pay has been done by the respondents without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner which was required. Secondly he urges that in case any pay in excess of what was actually admissible to the petitioner has been paid to them, State is not entitled to recover it. He places reliance on Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar & others, (2009) 3 SCC 475. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that fixation was done on the basis of some action having been taken at the X.En level and the seniority list was circulated in the year 2005 and it is only after the petitioner was granted work charged status that re-fixation of pay was required to be undertaken. There is no dispute before me that no notice was issued to the petitioners before their pay was re-fixed at a lower grade when it was revised. It is now well settled that any act of the State which has civil consequence and adversary affects the monetary benefits etc. of an individual requires that the basic minimum principles of natural justice be followed. (See State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei & others,AIR 1967 SC 1269.) There is no dispute with respect to this proposition. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to treat this writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioners. The reply to the writ petition shall be treated as a notice to the petitioners for which they will be entitled to file reply before respondent No.2 and to urge on the legality of the action of the respondents. It is directed that respondent No. 2 shall dispose of such representation within a period of six weeks from the date on which the copy of this order is first presented before him. While disposing of the representation, he shall also be bound by the directions as issued by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei & others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and Syed Abdul Qadir’s case. There will be no recovery from the salary of the petitioners till the representation is disposed of. Petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs. Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court again in case a decision adverse to them is taken. September 09, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge