JUDGMENT 1. - Since common question is involved in all the three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. In order to resolve controversy raised in these petitions, common facts, in brief, are taken note out of CWP No 7999/92 (Kheratilal Meena v. State & Others) . 2. All petitioners are Ex Defence personnel. After serving Indian army for sufficient long time, retired form service at basic pension as per their entitlement under relevant pension rules and thereafter they were re-employed as Company Commander against quota reserved for Ex Defence Personnel in Department of Civil Defence & Home guard of State Government after their regular selection in pay scale of Rs. 2000-32001- and were fixed at minimum in the pay scale. After working for two years on their re-employment in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-, respondents took impugned derision vide order dated 26.4.92 (Ann. 2) whereby their minimum pay was refixed and was reduced to Rs. 815/- on premises that as per R. 347 read with 351 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (`R.S.R.'). what has been paid to petitioners towards pension as Defence Personnel has to be adjusted towards pay as admissible to him in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- and as a consequence whereof, further order (Ann.4) was issued on 23.7.92 by respondents for recovery of excess payment made to them. Hence petitioners have challenged orders of their re-fixation and so also recovery, by present petitions. 3. Shri Pyarelal, Counsel for petitioners has urged that rights were vested as a result of re-employment of petitioners after regular selection in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- which they continued to draw, but the same was withdrawn by respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing before taking impugned decision of withdrawal and recovery under thereof, which has visited with civil consequences and denial of opportunity in such facts situation is in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention Counsel has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 2480 ) and of this Court in Narain Lal v. State (2000(3) WLC (Raj.) 332) . 4. Counsel has further contended that after Rr. In support of his contention Counsel has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 2480 ) and of this Court in Narain Lal v. State (2000(3) WLC (Raj.) 332) . 4. Counsel has further contended that after Rr. 347 & 351 of R.S.R., which was made basis by respondents while taking impugned decision, has now been repealed by enactment of Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules, 1996') with effect from 1st October, 1996, which depicts that respondents have realised their mistake and the rule making authority U/r. 152(d)(i) of the Rules, 1996 has made pay & allowances admissible which Ex-defence personnel are entitled for at the time of re-employment, and their pension payable will not be adjustable towards salary in their pay scale of re-employment, as such very action of respondents of taking impugned decision does not hold good. 5. Respondents have filed their reply to writ petitions inter-alia averring that in order of re-employment, itself, it was made categorically that fixation of their pay will be made in accordance with RSR & R. 351 of RSR clearly postulates that on re-employment of defence personnel, whatever has been paid towards pension to them have to be adjusted while making fixation in their pay scale in question and accordingly, no error has been committed by the State while taking decision under impugned orders. 6. Shri B.K. Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate urged that R. 351 of RSR in unequivocal terms postulates that pension payable has to be adjusted towards salary payable to defence personnel on their re-employment, therefore, issuance of show cause notice before taking impugned decision, in facts of present case will be nothing than empty formality and it has also been submitted that R. 152 of Rules, 1996, would not be applicable since it has become into force with effect from 1.10.96, whereas impugned decision was taken by respondents in April, 1992. 7. This Court has been informed that during pendency of petitions, the recovery sought to be made by respondents was stayed by this Court and that apart, petitioners have retired after re-employment service also and further after coming into force of Rules, 1996, fixation of their pension on notional basis has also been made from the date of re-employment in terms of R. 152(d) (i) of Rules, 1996. 8. 8. I have considered rival submissions of both the parties and perused material on record. It has not been disputed by respondents that neither notice nor show cause was ever issued to petitioners before taking impugned decision and the same has been taken behind their back, which has certainly caused prejudice to them. It is settled law that while taking decision if it causes any prejudice to an incumbent, pre-decisional notice has to be served and particularly when action has visited with Civil consequences, opportunity of hearing to show cause or explanation as against proposed reduction of basic pay and recovery to be made, in facts of present case, was minimal required to comply with principles of natural justice. As a result of impugned decision of recovery of emoluments already paid to petitioners. certainly caused financial loss to them without being heard. 9. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India (supra), observed, "Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter." 10. This Court in Narainlal v. State (supra) has also observed as under : "16. Thus, from the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court quoted above, it is clear that in case the Court find that any benefits was received by a person without there being any fault on his part in receiving such benefit, it would be just and proper to allow him to retain such benefit." 11. In the light of aforesaid decisions, in my opinion, action of respondents in present case, has certainly visited with civil consequences to petitioners and they have not been afforded an opportunity to show cause against the reduction of their basic pay before taking prejudicial decision by respondents and thus, impugned decision is certainly in violation of principles of natural justice.R. 351 of RSR provides as under : "351. (a) When a person formerly in military service obtains employment in civil department after having been granted a military pension he shall continue to draw his military pension, but the authority competent to fix the pay and allowances of the post in which he is employed shall have in fixing his pay & allowances in the post in which he is re-employed, the power to take into account the amount of pension, including such portion of it as may have been commuted. (b) A military Officer, departmental officer warrant or non- commissioned officer or solider who is granted a pension under military rules, shall draw such pension while he is in civil employment. but the authority competent to fix the pay & allowances of the post in civil employment, may, with effect from the date from which the pension is granted, reduce such pay & allowances with reference to such officer or solider by any amount not exceeding the amount of such pension." 12. R. 351, quoted supra, now stands repealed by virtue of enactment 0: Rules, 1996 with effect form 1.10.96 in terms of R. 168. R. 152(d)(i) of Rules, 1996 provides as under : "152(d). In the case of persons retired before attaining the age of 55 years and who are re-employed, pension (excluding pension equivalent of gratuity and other forms of retirement benefits) shall be ignored for initial pay fixation to the following extent : (i) in the case of ex-servicemen who held posts below commissioned officer's rank in the defence forces and in the case of other retired Government servants who held posts other than State Service posts at the time of their retirement, the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored. (ii) In the case of service officers belonging to Defence forces and State Government pensioners who were members of the State services at the time of their retirement, the first Rs. 1500/- of the pension shall be ignored." 13. Thus as is evident from a bare reading of afore quoted R. 152(d)(i) of Rules, 1996, it makes precise that pension drawn by defence personnel will be ignored for initial pay fixation on his re-employment. In view of changed circumstances, validity of R. 351 of RSR is not required to be examined by this Court. 14. Thus as is evident from a bare reading of afore quoted R. 152(d)(i) of Rules, 1996, it makes precise that pension drawn by defence personnel will be ignored for initial pay fixation on his re-employment. In view of changed circumstances, validity of R. 351 of RSR is not required to be examined by this Court. 14. Conclusion of above discussion is that these petitions (CWP No. 7999/92, 7995/92 & 791/94) are allowed. The impugned decision/action of respondents in making re-fixation and so also recovery pursuant thereto against petitioners vide following orders : (a) pay re-fixation order dated 26.4.92 (Ann. 2) & order dated 23.7.92 (Ann. 4) in CWP No. 7999/92. (b) pay re-fixation order dated 27A.91 (Ann. 2), order dated 16.7.91 (Ann. 9) rejecting application made against order (Ann. 2) & recovery orders dated 29.4.92 (Ann. 4) & 30.10.92 (Ann. 11) in CWP No. 7950/92. (c) pay re-fixation order dated 17.11.92 (Ann.2) and recovery order dated 6.12.93 (Ann.4) in CWP No. 791/94, are hereby quashed & set aside. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed; All impugned orders quashed. *******