Judgment S. B. Sinha, R. N. Prasad, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the University and the Intervenor. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 16-9-1993 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the respondents have directed to pay salary to the petitioner in the minimum pay scale Learned counsel for the respondents have taken us through various documents to show that the petitioners had wrongly been given increment contrary to the directives of the State Government from 1990. 3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, placed before us several documents for the purpose of showing that the aforementioned directives of the State Government which one contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit as also Annexures 3, 4 and 5 to the writ application are not application to the cases of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners had been working against sanctioned post and they have been appointed by following the procedures, i. e. upon recommendations of the College Service Commission. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in a situation of this nature where there exists serious disputed question, the petitioners were atleast entitled to the minimal requirement of the principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute that if the impugned order is implemented the same would cause evil or evil cansequence so far the petitioners are concerned. 5. It has been accepted by Mr. Rafat Alam that bv reason of impugned order the petitioners would only be getting salary at the minimum of the scale of pay admissible in relation to the post held by the petitioners although earlier they had been getting much higher salary. Further the dearness allowance etc. , would also have to be reduced proportionately. Thus there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that by reason of the impugned order prejudices have been caused to the petitioners. Had an opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioners they could have shown that the documents upon which reliance is being placed by the University are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in case of reduction in payment of salary the principle of natural justice have to be complied with. 6. It is now a well-settled principle of law that in case of reduction in payment of salary the principle of natural justice have to be complied with. 6. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We may, however, state that although learned counsel for the parties have taken us through various documents in support of their respective cases on merits, we have not applied our mind thereto in view of the order proposed to be passed by us. 7. We, therefore, dispose of this writ application by directing the vice-Chancellor of Magadh University to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and/or their authorised representative. It will be open to the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the University which in our opinion, should be done within one week and the representation of by passing a speaking order within four weeks thereafter. The representatives of the petitioners, as also the University and the State, if any, may also be heard in the matter. The Vice-Chancellor shall also consider as to whether decision of this Court passed in CWJC No.10606/93 (Bihar Rajya Mahavidyalaya Shikshak Evam Shikshkottar Karamchari kalyan Mahasangh and ors v State of Bihar and ors), disposed of on 23-3-94 would apply in this case or not Till the determination of the claim of the petitioner the impugned order as contained in Annexure 6 shall not be implemented, so far the same relates to the persons mentioned in Annexures 2 and 3 The counsel for the intervenor has contended that some of the petitioners do not hold requisite qualification for appointment. We have not applied our mind to that aspect of the matter, keeping in view the fact that it stands admitted at the Bar that a writ application was filed by the intervenor in this Court which was disposed of and in terms whereof the petitioners thereof had been asked to seek proper remedy for redressal of their grievance before the Chancellor.