JUDGMENT 1. :- The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows : 2. Smt. T.T. Helen, appellant before us was serving as A.N.M. under administrative control of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sawai Madhopur on 2-11-1968. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant was selected for training for the course of GNM at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur in October, 1975. Petitioner completed this training and passed the course in Sept. 1979. She claims to have been promoted as Staff Nurse vide order Annx. 7 dated 3-1-1979. By order dated 12-6-1979 (Annx. 2) her salary was fixed at Rs. 510/- p.m. in the pay scale of Rs. 440-10-490-20-770. However, by order Annx. 3 dated 11th May, 1993, order Annx. 2 was modified and her pay was refixed at Rs. 480 p.m. in the pay scale of Rs. 440-10-490-20-770 with effect from 12-1-1979. Subsequent pay revisions were duly made and recoveries were sought to be made in respect of the excess amount drawn by petitioner-appellant. The appellant challenged this action of the respondents by filing, the writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises. 3. The case of the petitioner was that on her promotion as Staff Nurse, her salary had been rightly fixed under Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as Rs. 510/- p.m. and this salary could not have been reduced. The second contention was that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to her prior to modification of order Annx. 2. It was pleaded that Annx. 2 conferred a valuable right on her and the right flowing from Annx. 2 could not have been taken away without affording her an opportunity of hearing. The Against the order passed by the learned single Judge, D/- 7-8-1991. other ground taken was that a similarly situated person viz., Mrs. Omanamma P.M., who had been promoted as Staff Nurse, had AK/BK/R151/92/VSM - been fixed on a higher stage in the same manner but she still continues to draw salary on the basis of such fixation and her salary has not been reduced. Likewise, case of Elcy Lulcose (previously A.N.M.) was also cited and it was stated that her salary had also been fixed up at Rs. 510/- p.m. but no recoveries were being made from her. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner's prayer, inter alia was that impugned order dated 11-5-1983 (Annx. Likewise, case of Elcy Lulcose (previously A.N.M.) was also cited and it was stated that her salary had also been fixed up at Rs. 510/- p.m. but no recoveries were being made from her. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner's prayer, inter alia was that impugned order dated 11-5-1983 (Annx. 3) may be declared invalid and be quashed and respondents may be directed to refund the amount recovered from her with 18% p.a. 5. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents and it was submitted that petitioner had been appointed as Staff Nurse after completion of training and it was by mistake that the order Annx. 2 mentioned that she had been promoted. It was pleaded that in fact she had never been promoted as Staff Nurse. Hence, as soon as the mistake came to light, corrigendum Annx. 3 was issued. It was, however, not controverted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing prior to issue of Annx. 3. In case of Mrs. Omanamma P.M. it was stated that her case has been regularised and she has not been given the benefits of the provisions of Rule 26-A of the Rules. In case of Mrs. Elcy Lulcose, it was stated that her pay had also been wrongly fixed and necessary, orders in this regard have already been issued and she is also not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Rule 26-A of the Rules. 6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and she reiterated that she had been promoted to the post of Staff Nurse and it was wrong to say that she had not been so promoted. It was reiterated that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before reducing her salary. It was submitted that Mrs. Omanamma P.M. was still drawing the pay on which she had been fixed and likewise Mrs. Elcy C.V. was also drawing salary on the basis of earlier fixation at Rs. 510 p.m. and no recovery has been made from her. 7. Learned single Judge after hearing both the sides was of the view that the petitioner had failed to show that she had been promoted as Staff Nurse by Annx. 1 and therefore, she was not entitled to draw salary at Rs. 510 p.m. in accordance with Annx. 2. He consequently held that Annx. 7. Learned single Judge after hearing both the sides was of the view that the petitioner had failed to show that she had been promoted as Staff Nurse by Annx. 1 and therefore, she was not entitled to draw salary at Rs. 510 p.m. in accordance with Annx. 2. He consequently held that Annx. 3 had been rightly passed. The learned single Judge, however, did not consider that Annx. 3 had been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He accepted the submission of the respondents that Mrs. Omanamma P.M. and Mrs. Elcy Lulcose have not been given the benefits of the provisions of R. 26-A of the Rules. Consequently, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come by way of this Special Appeal. 8. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not granted any opportunity of hearing by the respondents before issuing Annx. 3 and on this sole basis Annx. 3 was had in law and was void. It is submitted that Annx. 3 took away a valuable right of the petitioner, which had been conferred upon her by Annx, 2. It is submitted that had opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioner, she could have shown that in fact she had been promoted on the post of Staff Nurse and on this basis her salary had been fixed at Rs. 510 p.m. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the learned single Judge did not take into consideration this vital aspect of the matter and the writ petition ought to have been accepted on the sole ground alone. He has raised other contentions also but in view of the order that we propose to make, we need not go into such contentions. 9. On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon Dr. P.S. Gehlot v. The State of Raj. 1977 WLN (UC) 384 and has submitted that by Annx. 3 only a correction had been made, because petitioner was wrongly shown as promoted by Annx. 2. He submits that no question of principles of natural justice was involved in the matter. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions. We have also gone through the record placed before the learned single Judge. 11. 2. He submits that no question of principles of natural justice was involved in the matter. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions. We have also gone through the record placed before the learned single Judge. 11. Annexure 2 categorically mentions that "consequent upon the promotion of Smt. T.T. Helen. A.N.M. on the post of Staff Nurse", her pay was fixed at Rs. 510/- plus other usual allowances with effect from 12-1-1979. Now. Annx. 3 does not mention that Annx. 2 wrongly or mistakenly recited or that Mrs. T.T. Helen had not been promoted. The learned single Judge was of the view that the petitioner had never been promoted and the petitioner had not placed on record the order by which she had been promoted. This is true that petitioner has not placed any material except Annx. 2 to show that she had been promoted. However. Annx. 2 was a document issued by the respondents and it was for them to show that Annx. 2 had been issued under some mistake or wrong impression. No document has been placed by respondents to show that Annx. 2 had been issued under a mistake. However, we may say that even if Annx. 2 had been issued under a mistake, the respondents were under a duty to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to show that there was no mistake in issuing Annx. 2 and that in fact she had been promoted and it was on that basis that she had been fixed at Rs. 510/- p.m. 12. The principles of natural justice are the very basis of the rule of law. The principle is ingrained in our judicial system. Rule of 'audi alteram partem' has been recognised by the apex Court in a catena of judgments and we may make reference to only two of them. In R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commissioner (1989) 1 SCC 628 ) their Lordships held : "Where rule of audi alteram partem had been violated, an order passed in violation of this principle was null and void.' In Shrawan Kuar Jha v. State of Bihar a teacher had been appointed by the District Superintendent of Schools but appointments had been cancelled by Government on the ground that District Superintendent of Schools had no authority to make appointment. No prior opportunity of hearing was given to the appointee before cancelling the order of appointment. It was held that prior opportunity of hearing should have been given before passing the order. Their Lordships observed that : "By an order dated Nov. 2, 1988 the Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled the appointments of the appellants. Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has contended that the appointments have been cancelled because the Dist. Superintendent of Education has had no authority to make the appointments, it was a device of by-passing the reservations and that the conditions which are part of the appointment order were not complied with. Mr. U.R. Lalit and Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Advocates, appearing for the appellants have controverted these allegations and have stated that all these teachers were validly appointed and they had joined their respective schools. It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order of cancellation date Nov. 3, 1988 on this short ground." In Dr. P.S. Gehlot's case (supra) cited on behalf of the respondents, an appointment had been made under a mistaken impression that the petitioner had been cleared by the D.P.C. The Government on realising its mistake corrected the order. A learned single Judge of this Court, while deciding the matter, was of the view that before seeing whether the rule of natural justice had been flouted or not, the court had to decide whether observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of the case. It may be stated that when this judgment was rendered, the aforesaid two rulinges of the apex Court had not been rendered. In view of the aforesaid two rulings of the apex Court, we find that the view of the learned single Judge is no longer good law. It may be stated that when this judgment was rendered, the aforesaid two rulinges of the apex Court had not been rendered. In view of the aforesaid two rulings of the apex Court, we find that the view of the learned single Judge is no longer good law. In our opinion, whenever an order to the detriment of a person is contemplated to be passed opportunity of hearing must be given to him so that he may show cause why such an order should not be passed. Adoption of such a course would cut down much of avoidable litigation and would also inculcate a sense of satisfaction in the mind of an aggrieved employee. 13. As stated already, in the present case, Annx. 2 very categorically recited that "consequent upon the promotion of Smt. T.T. Helen A.N.M. on the post of Staff Nurse the pay on the post of Staff Nurse is hereby fixed on Rs. 510/- p.m. plus other usual allowance with effect from 12-1-1979. "This conferred a very valuable civil right on the appellant. 14. Now, Annx. 3 does not show that Annx. 2 had been passed due to some mistake. Of course, the respondent have raised the conclusion that Annx. 2 had been passed due to mistake but then opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioner to show that Annx. 2 had been passed on proper facts and was not passed due to any mistake. 15. This is true that petitioner did not produce any specific order of promotion before the learned single Judge but it is to be borne in mind that the relevant documents must be in the custody of the respondents. The respondents also did not care to produce the relevant documents before the learned single Judge to show that the petitioner had been appointed to the post of Staff Nurse and had not been promoted. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion, that the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and Annx. 3 should be quashed with all consequential results. However, respondents shall be free to make proper enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in case respondents still come to the conclusion that Annx. 2 had been passed by mistake. 16. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and quash Annx. However, respondents shall be free to make proper enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in case respondents still come to the conclusion that Annx. 2 had been passed by mistake. 16. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and quash Annx. 3 with consequential effects. However, as stated above, respondents shall be free to make a proper enquiry after giving due notice to the petitioner and examine if Annx. 2 was passed on correct facts or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.Order accordingly. *******