JUDGMENT M Srinivasan, C.J—These two writ petitions have to be allowed on a very short ground that no opportunity was ever given to the petitioners before their scales of pay were reduced, 2. The petitioner in C W P. No, 1434 of 1996 was appointed on 27-12-1990 as a Constable/Cook. His scale of pay at that time Rs. 825-1,200, but the respondents passed an order on 13-5-1991, which entitled itself as Corrigendum’ By that order the petitioners scale was directed to be read as Rs 950-1,400 with effect from 27-12-1990, on the date on which he was appointed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not make any representation to change the scale of pay, which was originally fixed at Rs 825-1,200. The Corrigendum was issued by the Authorities voluntarily on their own with effect from the date of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was getting his pay according to that scale thereafter. 3. By office order dated 4-10-1995, the respondents re-fixed the scale of pay of the petitioner at Rs. 825-1,200 with effect from his initial appointment By another order, the petitioner was directed to refund the amount paid to him in excess under the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1,400. The aggrieved petitioner has come before this Court. 4. In C.W.P.No, 1750 of 1996, the petitioners were enrolled as Constables/Cook. The first of them was appointed on 1-4-1982. The petitioners No } and 5 were appointed on 24-1-1986 and 29-5-1982, respectively Petitioners No. 3, 4 and 6 were appointed on 21-2-1989, 10-7-1989 and 22-5-1989, respectively. In so far as petitioners No 3, 4 and 6 are concerned even at the time of appointment their scale of pay was fixed at Rs 950-1,400. As regards petitioners No 2 and 5 their scale of pay at the time of appointment was Rs 225-308 Similarly, with regard to petitioner No. 1 though the earlier scale was Rs 210-270, it was changed into Rs /25i08 with effect from the date of his appointment. The pay scales of petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5 were changed after the 4th Pay Commission report to Rs. 950-1,400 with effect from 1- 2-1986. 5. By an order dated 5-8-1996, the pay scale of the petitioners were altered though the revised scale was not mentioned in that order. The pay scales of petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5 were changed after the 4th Pay Commission report to Rs. 950-1,400 with effect from 1- 2-1986. 5. By an order dated 5-8-1996, the pay scale of the petitioners were altered though the revised scale was not mentioned in that order. It was only stated in the order that at the time of initial appointment the pay scale was Rs 980-1,400 It is further stated that the matter was taken with the Cabinet Secretariat to grant the Metric scale in favour of Constable/Cook, orderly, Barber, Dhobi and Sweeper, but it was not considered by the Cabinet Secretariat and decided vide their U, O No, Coord/11/7 (2)/526, dated 2 1-1996 ft was ultimately stated that the necessary recoveries in regard to above subject be done earliest to avoid I T. C. objection It is not clear from the said order dated 5-8-1996 as to what exactly was decided by the Cabinet and what was the scale of pay, to which the petitioners became entitled on account of that decision of the Cabinet and what would be the recovery from the petitioners. 6. In this case also no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the order dated 5-8-1996 was made. The main point in both the cases is the same but in CWP No. 1750/96, the petitioners are on stronger ground that their initial scale of pay was itself Rs, 950 1,400 and further the order dated 5-8-1996 does not even set out the revised scale or the amount to be recovered from them. 7 As it is now clear that none of the petitioners was given any opportunity to make representation as to why their scale of pay should not be revised and it should continue to be Rs, 950 1,400 The impugned orders passed against these petitioners are unsustainable. 7 As it is now clear that none of the petitioners was given any opportunity to make representation as to why their scale of pay should not be revised and it should continue to be Rs, 950 1,400 The impugned orders passed against these petitioners are unsustainable. The principles of Natural Justice have been clearly violated in these cases 8, The Supreme Court has in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 154, laid down that the appellant therein was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law and, therefore, there was a flagrant violation of the principles of Natural Justice and the appellant had to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. 9. That principle will apply in these cases an I these petitioners cannot be put to financial loss without any notice to them and without following any procedure known to law. 10 In such circumstances, the order dated 4-10-1995 passed against the petitioner in C. W P. No 1454 of 1996 and the order dated 5-8-1996 passed against the petitioners to C. W. P No, 1750 of 1996, are quashed. If the respondents want to reduce the scale of pay of the petitioners, it is open to them to take appropriate proceedings and give sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to make their representations before they take any action for reduction of the scales of pay. As the impugned orders are quashed, the respondents are bound to pay the difference in the salary payable to the petitioners as per the scale Rs. 950-1,400. 11. With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.