JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Petitioner M.L. Sharda has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: (i) PD Circular No. 43/94 dated 12.12.1994 Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed, with all consequential benefits. (ii) The arrears of benefits to which the petitioner is entitled under 6th Bipartite settlement and which have been adjusted by the Bank may kindly be directed to be paid to the petitioner immediately. (iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the record of the case. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay the cost of this writ petition. (v) Any other order which this Honble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner has retired from Army as Hawaldar on 31.1.1981. His basic pay, at the time of retirement, was Rs. 330/-, class pay Rs. 15/- and good pay Rs. 12/- plus other allowances. The petitioner later on joined the service of Punjab National Bank respondent No. 2 (for short PNB) as Peon-cum-Guard on 20.5.1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 245-455 plus special allowance of Rs. 34/-, as per 3rd Bipartite settlement, dated 1.8.1979. The last pay drawn by the petitioner in the Army was also to be protected and fitment was also to be given to him in the PNB, w.e.f. 25.1.1983 as per Personnel Division Circular No. 741 dated 4.1.1984 (Annexure P-l). The pay scales of the PNB employees were revised by the 4th Bipartite settlement dated 17.9.1984 w.e.f. 1.7.1983. The Peon-cum-Guard was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 430-790 plus special allowance of Rs. 56/-. The petitioner was made Peon-cum-Guard-Daftri on 1.5.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 430-790 with special allowance of Rs. 56/-. The PNB issued PD Circular No. 953 dated 21.8.1986 (Annexure P-2) to remove the discrepancy between the Ex-Serviceman employees appointed in the PNB before 1.9.1978 and after 1.9.1978. 3. The pay scales of the PNB employees were again revised w.e.f. 1.11.1987 as per 5th Bipartite settlement dated 10.4.1989. The Peon-cum-Guard-cum-Daftri was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 815-1520 with special allowance of Rs. 101/- plus three stagnation increments after two years frequency. 3. The pay scales of the PNB employees were again revised w.e.f. 1.11.1987 as per 5th Bipartite settlement dated 10.4.1989. The Peon-cum-Guard-cum-Daftri was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 815-1520 with special allowance of Rs. 101/- plus three stagnation increments after two years frequency. The 5th Bipartite agreement was supplemented by another agreement dated 23.2.1990 w.e.f. 1.11.1989 revising the pay scale of PNB employees. The PNB vide another Bipartite agreement dated 29.10.1993 had given one increment on account of computerization to its employees. In addition to this, vide settlement dated 29.10.1993, the PNB employees who were at the maximum of the scale and in the receipt of stagnation increments as on 1.11.1993, were given fixed personal allowance w.e.f. 1.11.1993. The petitioner was also given the benefit of personal allowance of Rs. 50/- per month, which was later on revised to Rs. 119/- per month on 14.2.1995, but he has actually not been paid personal allowance of Rs. 119/- instead he has been paid Rs. 108.50p. per month w.e.f. 1.11.1993. 4. PNB issued Personnel Division Circular No. 43/94 dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure P-3), Per para 3(A) of the said Circular the pay fixation of Ex-servicemen, who have joined PNB in special allowance carrying posts prior to 13.3.1992, were to be re-fixed by re-opening their cases, but recovery of excess payment, if any, made to them upto 13.3.1992 was waived off. The comparison of fitment under Circular Letter No. 741 dated 4.1.1984 and Circular No. 43/94 dated 12.12.1994 makes it clear that the petitioner is looser when his fitment was made under circular No. 43/94, as under circular No. 741 dated 4.1.1984, the special allowance has been kept separate over and above and pay, whereas under circular No. 43/94, the special allowance has been merged in the pay for giving the fitment and lateron necessary increments have been given in order to protect the pay. The complexion of the fitment of the petitioner has been entirely changed. 5. According to the petitioner, the pay scales of PNB employees were again revised by the 6th Bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995 w.e.f. 1.11.1992. The Peon-cum-Guard-cum-Daftri was placed in pay scale of Rs. 1600-3020 plus four stagnation increments with special allowance of Rs. 228/-. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftri on 1.5.1986 with special allowance of Rs. 66/- and the next grade increment was given to him on 25.1.1987. The Peon-cum-Guard-cum-Daftri was placed in pay scale of Rs. 1600-3020 plus four stagnation increments with special allowance of Rs. 228/-. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftri on 1.5.1986 with special allowance of Rs. 66/- and the next grade increment was given to him on 25.1.1987. The petitioner was paid salary of May, 1995 under 5th Bipartite settlement dated 10.4.1989 and subsequent settlement dated 23.2.1990 but after implementation of Circular No. PD 43/94 dated 12.12.1994, last two stagnation increments which he had earned were not paid to him in May, 1995. According to the petitioner, he immediately prior to the implementation of 6th Bipartite settlement, was drawing Rs. 1,570/- with three stagnation increments in the pay scale of Rs. 815-1520 and his pay was to be fixed at Rs. 3,120/- in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-3020 with four stagnation increments of Rs. 100/- each after two years frequency plus special allowance of Rs. 228/-. On the basis of PD Circular No. 43/94, dated 12.12.1994, the PNB has adjusted Rs. 34/- special allowance meant for Peon-cum-Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 245-455 for fixing pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 245-455 in order to protect his pay of Rs. 357/- which he was drawing in the Army. Thus, instead of 13 advance increments, the PNB has given only 10 advance increments to the petitioner for fixing his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 245-455. Thus, PD Circular No. 43/94 dated 12.12.1994, has affected the petitioner at every stage as he has lost two stagnation increments which he has earlier earned. The fourth stagnation increment was otherwise due to the petitioner on 25.1.1997, but now in view of the PD Circular No. 43/94, the petitioner has been given first stagnation increment on 25.1.1994 and now he will get second stagnation increment on 25.1.1996, third stagnation increment on 25.1.1998 and fourth stagnation increment on 25.1.2000. The age of the retirement of the category of the petitioner is 60 years in PNB. In the month of May, 1995, PNB has implemented PD Circular No.-43/94 and reduced the salary of the petitioner by depriving him from the benefit of the last two stagnation increments of Rs. 100/- each. The age of the retirement of the category of the petitioner is 60 years in PNB. In the month of May, 1995, PNB has implemented PD Circular No.-43/94 and reduced the salary of the petitioner by depriving him from the benefit of the last two stagnation increments of Rs. 100/- each. The benefits which had accrued to the petitioner under the 6th Bipartite settlement were not paid to him, instead the arrears of the benefits under the settlement have been adjusted by PNB against the recovery to be made by PNB after 13.3.1992 in terms of PD Circular No. 43/94. The petitioner stated that the Central Government has issued some instructions to the Bank through Indian Banks Association on the basis of which PD Circular No. 43/94 has been issued by PNB. 6. The petitioner has challenged the PD Circular No. 43/94 inter alia that the instructions allegedly issued by the Central Government has no statutory force and as such those instructions cannot be given retrospective effect to adversely affect the Ex-servicemen employees of Bank who were already enjoying the benefits of special allowance over and above the pay for the last many years. The recovery of the benefits already paid to the petitioner on the basis of the PD Circular 43/94 is otherwise wrong, illegal and the said Circular is illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as PNB has not heard the petitioner and other similarly situate Ex-servicemen employees before issuing the impugned circular. 7. In this writ petition, Union of India through the Secretary (Finance Banking Division) New Delhi, Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank Association, Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hamirpur Region and Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ghanari, Tehsil Gagret, Distt. Una are the respondents. The writ petition came up for admission before this Court on 28.9.1995 when notices were issued to the respondents. In the interim, the operation of PD Circular No. 43/94 dated 12.12.1994, (Annexure P-3) was stayed till further orders and the petitioner was ordered to be paid the salary which he had been receiving before the issuance of the said circular. The writ petition was finally admitted on 8.8.1996 and the interim order was confirmed. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No. 1 Union of India and respondent No. 3 Indian Bank Association. 8. The writ petition was finally admitted on 8.8.1996 and the interim order was confirmed. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No. 1 Union of India and respondent No. 3 Indian Bank Association. 8. In opposition to the writ petition, joint reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, respondent No. 4 Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hamirpur and respondent No. 5 Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ghanari, Tehsil Gagret, District Una. 9. The contesting respondents raised preliminary objection that the issue involved in this writ petition is pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Chandigarh for adjudication between the management of PNB and PNB Staff Union (HP) for revising the salaries of Ex-servicemen employees and recoveries of the huge amount from them and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. On merit, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner joined the service of PNB as Peon-cum-Guard on the w.e.f. 20.5.1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 245-455 plus special allowance of Rs. 34/-. The respondents in terms of the settlement dated 29.10.1993 between the Indian Bank Association-respondent No. 3 and the workmen on computerisation drawing scale of wages as on 1.11.1993 were allowed one advance increment in the scale of pay. It was also provided in the agreement that the employee who was at the maximum of scale of pay or who is in receipt of stagnation increment as on 1.11.1993 shall draw a fixed personal allowance from the said date which is equivalent to an amount of Rs. 50/- for subordinate staff plus DA and HRA, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been given fixed personal allowance at the rate of Rs. 50/- plus DA plus HRA payable to him on 1.11.1993 which comes to Rs. 108.50 p. and in view of the Bipartite settlement effective from 1.11.1992, the petitioner is being paid a fixed personal allowance at the revised rate of Rs. 119/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1993. 50/- plus DA plus HRA payable to him on 1.11.1993 which comes to Rs. 108.50 p. and in view of the Bipartite settlement effective from 1.11.1992, the petitioner is being paid a fixed personal allowance at the revised rate of Rs. 119/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1993. As per the respondents, Annexure P-3 was issued by PNB in view of the guidelines issued by respondent No. 1-Union of India through respondent No. 3 wherein it was clarified to all the Banks including PNB that it would be necessary to ensure that the basic pay plus DA and the special allowance for staff like the petitioner i.e. Armed Guards/Watchman are taken into account while protecting the last pay drawn and the dearness allowance thereon at the time of retirement/discharge from the Armed service as the special allowance is in the nature of Bank pay. The respondents have also stated that after the receipt of the letter dated 13.3.1992 (Annexure R-2/1) issued by respondent No. 3-Association alongwith clarification dated 8.9.1993, PNB had received clarification from the Government of India that the recovery of excess amount was to be waived off only upto 13.3.1992 and recovery is to be made after this date as per letter dated 10.11.1994 (Annexure R-2/2). On the basis of the guide lines of the Government of India, PNB issued instructions (Annexure P-3) for re-fixation of salary of Ex-servicemen as PNB is bound to follow the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time in the matter of re-fixation of salary of Ex-servicemen and if the Government of India clarifies the position at a later stage, PNB has to abide by such instructions as also to follow the same. The respondents next stated that the special allowance payable to the petitioner and other similarly situate persons attracted all consequential benefits as payable on basic pay, therefore, it form part of the basic pay. The respondents have clarified that the post of Guard/ Watchman and Daftri are both sub-staff posts, as such, by posting the petitioner as Daftri no promotion has been given to him as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents then stated that 6th Bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995 is, effective w.e.f. 1.11.1992 and on the basis of the settlement, the net amount payable to the petitioner was Rs. 6524.20 p. and out of this amount a sum of Rs. The respondents then stated that 6th Bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995 is, effective w.e.f. 1.11.1992 and on the basis of the settlement, the net amount payable to the petitioner was Rs. 6524.20 p. and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 4765.10 p. was recovered from him towards excess payment on account of advance increments, which l>e was drawing for the last 11 years. According to the respondents, in terms of Personnel Department Circular No. 741/84 (Annexure R-2/3), Ex-servicemen employed in Public Sector Banks who sought protection of their pay in terms of the Scheme as contained in the Circular were given annual increment on the anniversary of 25.1.1983 and not on the anniversary of their joining the service of PNB, whereas the petitioner was getting the annual increments on the anniversary of his date of joining service of PNB and when this fact came to the notice of PNB, his salary accordingly is regulated and as a result of that, a sum of Rs. 4765.10 p. became due and recoverable from the petitioner. The respondents have denied that the petitioner is entitled to basic pay of Rs. 3,320/- plus DA plus HRA plus special allowance plus fixed personal allowance, as alleged by him in the writ petition. On these premises, the contesting respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 10. In rejoinder to the reply, the petitioner has stated that he is not a Member of the PNB Employees Union whose matter was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) for adjudication. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) has closed the proceedings pending before him as is revealed from Annexure P-5 filed with the rejoinder. The petitioner stated that PNB has initially paid Rs. 108.50 p. as fixed personal allowance to him instead of Rs. 119/-, but lateron, after the filing of the writ petition, personal allowance at the rate of Rs. 119/- has been restored to him. The vested right of the petitioner to receive special allowance over and above cannot be taken away by non-statutory instructions and the special allowance cannot be considered a part of the basic pay. 119/-, but lateron, after the filing of the writ petition, personal allowance at the rate of Rs. 119/- has been restored to him. The vested right of the petitioner to receive special allowance over and above cannot be taken away by non-statutory instructions and the special allowance cannot be considered a part of the basic pay. According to the petitioner, he has drawn salary on the basis of his pay fixed in terms of PD Circular No. 741/84 and now PNB intends to re-fix his pay by re-opening the fixation of pay under PD Circular No. 43/94 after a gap of nearly 12 years and PNB is unilaterally changing the service condition of the petitioner in violation of the Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has reiterated and reasserted the other averments made in the writ petition. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that now the petitioner has retired from the service. He contended that the action of PNB in revising the pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned PD Circular No. 43/94 dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure P-3) is in violation of the principles of the natural justice as the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate claim of pay and other allowances derived by him as per Circular No. 741 dated January 4, 1984 (Annexure P-l) as well as on the basis of the 6th Bipartite settlement and, therefore, Annexure P-3 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 12. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, contended that since the issue in question is already pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) between the management of PNB and Punjab National Bank Staff Union, the present writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable. He contended that every employee of PNB, whether he is a member of the Association or not, is bound by Bipartite settlement and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner made in this writ petition is unsustainable. 13. I have given my careful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. He contended that every employee of PNB, whether he is a member of the Association or not, is bound by Bipartite settlement and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner made in this writ petition is unsustainable. 13. I have given my careful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In my view, without going into the merits of the claim and counter claim of the parties involved in this writ petition, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on a sole ground that the action of the PNB re-fixing the salary of the petitioner and other similarly situate Ex-servicemen and resultant recovery of the huge amount from them is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been given the benefits of the pay and other allowances as per PD Circular No. 741, dated January 4, 1984 (Annexure P-l), on the basis of the instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Banking Division. Thereafter, his pay scale has been revised from time to time as per Bipartite settlements or instructions of the competent authority of PNB. The Chief Personnel of the RNB has issued PD Circular No. 43/ 94, dated 12th December, 1994 (Annexure P-3) with regard to the pay fixation of the Ex-servicemen re-employed in the Public Sector Banks as Award Staff on the directions of the Government of India. Annexure P-3 reveals that as per the advice of the Indian Banks Association, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Banking Division, has clarified that the special allowance paid for armed guards/watchmen/stenographers etc. be taken into account while protecting the last pay and dearness allowance drawn by Ex-servicemen at the time of their retirement/discharge from the service of Armed Forces. A perusal of PD Circular No. 43/94 (Annexure P-3) reveals that the Chief Personnel of PNB thereafter has decided as under: "(A) The pay fixation of all ex-servicemen who have joined the bank on special allowance carrying post prior to 13.3.1992 be re-fixed by reopening their cases but recovery of excess payment, if any, made to them upto 13.3.1992, may be waived. (B) The pay fication of all ex-servicemen who have joined the bank on or after 13.3.1992 be refixed by reopening their cases but excess payment, if any, made to them, be recovered." 14. All the Regional Managers /Zonal Managers/Divisional Chiefs etc. (B) The pay fication of all ex-servicemen who have joined the bank on or after 13.3.1992 be refixed by reopening their cases but excess payment, if any, made to them, be recovered." 14. All the Regional Managers /Zonal Managers/Divisional Chiefs etc. have been advised to re-open the case of all the Ex-servicemen who are employed in the bank in special allowance carrying post as Award Staff and refix their pay accordingly. Further this letter contemplates that in future, while making re-fixation of pay of Ex-servicemen, who joined the bank in special allowance cornering post, the special allowance drawn by them should also be taken into account. 15. There is no material on record to show that before taking action on the basis of PD Circular No. 43/94, Annexure P-3, any opportunity has been granted to the petitioner and other similar situate persons and the action has been taken by PNB unilaterally which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is well settled law that the principles of natural justice are intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and are now applied even to administrative orders which involve civil consequences. Generally, principles of natural justice require that opportunity of hearing should be given to the person against whom an administrative order is passed. The application or principles of natural justice and its sweep depend upon the nature of the rights involved, having regard to the context of the statutory provisions. Where a vested right is adversely affected by an administrative order, or where civil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice apply even if the statutory provisions do not make any express provision for the same, and the person concerned must be afforded opportunity of hearing before the order is passed. (See Union of India and others v. E.G. Nambudiri, (1991) Supreme Court Cases Vol. Ill, page 38 and Mahavir Singh v. Union of India and others, (1997) S.L.C. Vol. II, page 385). 16. As noticed above, in the present case, the petitioner who is re-employed in PNB has not given any opportunity to make the representation as to why his scale of pay should not be revised in terms of PD Circular No. 43/94 dated 12th December, 1994 (Annexure P-3). Thus, the impugned PD Circular No. 43/94 passed against the petitioner is unsustainable. The principles of natural justice have been clearly violated in this case. Thus, the impugned PD Circular No. 43/94 passed against the petitioner is unsustainable. The principles of natural justice have been clearly violated in this case. The Supreme Court in Bhagzvan Shukla v. Union of India and others, (1994) Supreme Court Cases Vol. VI, page 154, has 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 appellant had to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. 17. That principle will apply in the case on hand and the petitioner cannot be put to financial loss without any notice to him and without following any procedure known to law. 18. The contention of Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the issue involved in this writ petition is pending for adjudication before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Chandigarh does not merit acceptance. In letter dated nil, Annexure P-5 sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Chandigarh, to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi it finds stated that since the writ petition filed by a member of the Union in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (presumably the present writ petition), the industrial dispute is closed being subjudice and parties are advised to wait for a decision of the High Court, once the matter before the Industrial Tribunal has been closed, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred. Thus, the ratio of the decision relied upon by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel, in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Krishna Kant and others, (1995) Supreme Court Cases Vol. V, page 75, is not attracted in this case. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, PD Circular No. 43/94 dated 12th December, 1994 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and the action as taken by PNB on the basis of the said letter is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is allowed on this sole ground without going into the merits of the case on other issues. The writ petition is allowed on this sole ground without going into the merits of the case on other issues. If the respondents want to re-fix the pay of Ex-servicemen who were re-employed in PNB, it is open to them to take appropriate proceedings by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and similar situate Ex-servicemen to make their representations before the respondents and thereafter the respondents shall take any action in the re-fixation of the scale of pay in accordance with law. 20. There will be no order as to costs. The stay order passed by this court shall continue till the fresh decision is taken by the respondents, if they are so advised to proceed in the matter afresh. Writ petition allowed.