JUDGMENT Petitioners are seeking quashment of Annexure P-5 order dated 15.11.90, Annexure P-6 order dated 20.11.90 and order dated 20.11.90 Annexure P-7. In short the case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are employees of the respondent Board and they are all governed by the service conditions applicable to the employees of the State Government and the M.P. Fundamental Rules are also applicable to the petitioner employees. Originally petitioner No. 1 was appointed in service as L.D.C. on 2.11.1956 and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 13.2.56 as L.D.C. and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 27.11.71 as U.D.C. and by order dated 20.6.78 all the petitioners were promoted on the senior post of Manager sharing higher responsibilities in the grade of 220-375 and by order dated 20.6.78 they were drawing the maximum pay of the U.D.C. grade of Rs. 330/--. The respondent by order dated 9//12.3.79 was pleased to fix the pay of the petitioner No. 1 in the new grade of Rs. 350/- and the petitioner No.2 was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 340/- and the petitioner No.3 was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 235/- dated 15.11 ;90 (Annex. P-5) the pay scale of the petitioner No. I was reduced at Rs. 340/- in place of Rs. 350/- w.e.f. 26.6.78 and the pay scale of petitioner No.2 was reduced to Rs. 330/- in place of Rs. 340/- w.e.f. 24.6.78 by order dated 20.11.90 (Annex. P-6) and the pay scale of petitioner No.3 was reduced to Rs. 230/- in place of Rs. 235/- w.e.f 3.7.78 by order dated 20.11.90 (Annex. P-7). Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that after 11 years the respondent Board has illegally and arbitrarily reduced the salary from retrospective date and has also ordered recovery of amount without following the procedure and without giving due notice and opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order is absolutely illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The notice has already been served long back in 1991 on the sole respondent but nobody has made any appearance in the case, nor filed any reply. Today also nobody is present for respondent. Therefore, the order is absolutely illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The notice has already been served long back in 1991 on the sole respondent but nobody has made any appearance in the case, nor filed any reply. Today also nobody is present for respondent. From the impugned orders P-5, P-6 and P-7 it is very much clear that neither petitioners were heard nor due notices were given to them before passing orders of recovery and fixing them in lower pay scales, with retrospective effect. This is also the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Fundamental Rule 22A(i) is not applicable to them. They are only governed by F.R. 22-0 by which they were fixed in the proper scales in the year 1978. It is true that there is nothing on record to show that how the Rule 22A(i) is applicable on the petitioners and how they can be refixed in lower scale and how amount can be recovered after a period of II years. Naturally pay of the employees cannot be reduced without giving them show cause notice'and providing them opportunity of hearing under the principles of natural justice. In case of O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2257 , the Apex Court was pleased to observe that : "It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the rights of any person without first giving him an opportunity of putting forward his case. Both the Privy Council as well as this Court have in a series of cases required strict adherence to the rules of natural justice where a public authority or body has to deal with rights. There has ever since the judgment of Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40 been considerable fluctuation of judicial opinion in England as to the degree of strictness with which the rules of natural justice should be extended, and there is growing awareness of the problems created by the extended application of principles of natural justice, or the duty to act fairly, which tends to sacrifice the administrative efficiency and dispatch, or frustrates the' object of the law in question. Since this Court has held that Lord Reid's judgment in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40] should be of assistance in deciding questions relating to natural justice, there is always 'the duty to act judicially' whenever the rules of natural justice are applicable. There is therefore the insistence upon the requirement of a 'fair hearing'. In the light of these settled principles, we have no doubt whatever that the Government acted in flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice or fair play in passing the impugned order. We do not see why the principles enunciated by the Court in M. Gopala Krishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 1 SCR 355 : [ AIR 1968 SC 240 ] should not apply with equal vigour to a case like the present. There is no reason why the stoppage of increments at the efficiency bar on the ground of unfitness or otherwise after his retirement which prejudicially affects him should not be subject to the same limitations as engrafted by this Court in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu while dealing with the power of the Government in making a prejudicial order under FR 54, namely, the duty to hear the government servant concerned after giving him full opportunity to make out his case. . It must follow that when a prejudicial order is made in terms of FR 25 to deprive the government servant like the appellant of his increments above the age of efficiency bar retrospectively after his retirement, the Government has the duty to hear the concerned government servant before any order is made against him. There has to be as laid down in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu's case [ AIR 1968 SC 240 ] an objective consideration and assessment of all the relevant facts and circumstances." In view of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the Respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned orders Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7 are quashed with costs of Rs. 5001- to the petitioner, if certified. Security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.