Devi Ditta Vs State of Hp and Others

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶13

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶14

“ (i) That the impugned order dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No. 2 and subsequent office order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No. 4 may very kindly be quashed & setaside being arbitrary, illegal, whimsical, constitutional void, non-est and violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case as well as the judgment dated 29.07.2022 delivered by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 4696 of 2022 titled as Biri Singh vs. HRTC & another by issuing writ of Certiorari and justice be done.

¶15

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to draw his pay & allowances as usual in terms of

¶16

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

1

2

2026:HHC:12739

Annexure P-5 and P-6 respectively passed by the respondent No. 4 strictly in pursuance of Pr. Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of H.P. letter No. Fin (PR)-B (7)64/2010 dated 28th September, 2012 (Annexure P-3), vide which the pay of the petitioner was rightly fixed with a further accordingly on account of revision of pay scales w.e.f; 01.01.2016 and justice be done. (iii) That a writ in nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- only, which has already been recovered by the respondents out of arrear amount of the petitioner, which was calculated on account of revision of pay scales w.e.f; 01.01.2016 onwards and justice be done.”

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-8), respectively, in terms whereof, his pay was ordered to be re-fixed on the ground that it was wrongly fixed w.e.f. 30.05.2017 and in compliance thereto, the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed vide Annexure P-8 dated 02.07.2020, by reducing the same.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia , argued that the impugned orders are per se bad in the eyes of law because there was no wrong re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner earlier, as is mentioned in Annexure P-7 and further, the re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner has been done without issuing any Show Cause Notice etc. which violates the principles of natural justice.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶24

3

¶25

2026:HHC:12739

¶26

by placing reliance upon the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that as there was wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner done w.e.f. 30.05.2017, which was resulting in over payment to him, his pay was rightly re-fixed in terms of order dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-8). Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that despite these facts being in the knowledge of the petitioner since the year 2020, the petitioner has only come to the Court in the year 2023.

¶27

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed on one short count and the same is that Annexures P-7 and P-8 were passed at his back without appreciating that as this grave civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned, the same could not have been passed without hearing the petitioner.

¶28

It is settled law that any order which has grave civil consequences vis-a-vis a person, should not be passed without hearing him.

¶29

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in D.K. Yadav Versus J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 259 , has been pleased to hold as under:-

¶30

“…..8. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in

¶31

4

¶32

2026:HHC:12739

¶33

every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely' the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority to act arbitrarily effecting the rights of the concerned person.

¶34

9. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and be given him/ her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. [1978] 2 SCR 272 at 308F the Constitution Bench held that 'civil consequence' covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non- pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotion every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country they include rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., this court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support

¶35

5

¶36

2026:HHC:12739

¶37

thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. ”

¶38

In the present case, the effect of Annexures P-7 and P-8 is that the pay of the petitioner stands re-fixed and reduced as compared to the earlier pay being drawn by him. Obviously, this act of the respondents has grave civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned. The minimum that was required from the employer was that it should have issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, intimating him that they intended to re-fix his pay and response should have been sought from the petitioner as to why the same should not be done.

¶39

In the absence thereof, the act of the respondents under challenge is per se bad in law, being violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶40

Accordingly, on this short count, this petition is allowed. Order dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-8) are quashed and set aside being hit by principles of natural justice. However, in light of the fact that this petition has been allowed on a technical ground, liberty is granted to the respondent-Department, as prayed for, that it can re-initiate the process of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner, but by adhering to the

¶41

6

¶42

2026:HHC:12739

¶43

principles of natural justice. It goes without saying that as Annexures P-7 and P-8 stand quashed, recovery, if any effected as a result thereto, is also per se bad and the amount, if any recovered, be reimbursed to the petitioner.

¶44

The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶46

April 18, 2026 (Rishi)

Devi Ditta v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Ditta v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamal Kishore Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chander Bhardwaj Vs State Bank of India

Ramesh Kumar Dehal Vs Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and Ors.

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.