JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been preferred mainly ventilating the grievance of the petitioner for the order at Annexure-4, which has been passed by the concerned respondent authorities dated 25th of August, 2005 to the effect that Super Selection Grade which was given to the petitioner w. e. f. 21st of March, 1993, has now been cancelled by the aforesaid order and that too without affording any opportunity of being heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that there is a breach of principle of natural justice before passing the impugned order at Annexure-4 and arbitrarily the decision has been taken by the concerned respondent authorities. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that retirement benefit has been fixed on the basis of lower pay scale. It is also submitted that other similarly situated person have been given benefit of Super Selection Grade, whereas, the petitioner has been discriminated, without assigning any reason, worth the name, by the concerned respondent authorities. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who has mainly submitted that the Super Selection Grade was wrongly given to the petitioner and, therefore, same has been cancelled by the order at Annexure-4 dated 25th of August, 2005. So far as, retirement benefit is concerned, the same has already been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that order at Annexure-4 dated 25th of August, 2005 which takes away the valuable right, which was already given to the petitioner of super selection grade w. e. f. 21st of March, 1993 without giving any opportunity of being heard. 5. It also appears that the petitioner was getting all benefits of Super Selection Grade from March, 1993. He has reached to the age of superannuation on 31st of August, 2005. Thus before five/six days of his retirement; order at Annexure-4 has been passed. Authorities must have followed the base minimum requirement before taking away an accrued right i.e. observation of principle of natural justice. 6. There are several other grounds, which have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus before five/six days of his retirement; order at Annexure-4 has been passed. Authorities must have followed the base minimum requirement before taking away an accrued right i.e. observation of principle of natural justice. 6. There are several other grounds, which have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. But, if the impugned order is quashed on one ground alone the rest of the grounds for quashing the order (Annexure-4) are left open and only on the ground that there is breach of principle of natural justice, because opportunity of being heard not given to the petitioner before passing order at Annexure-4 dated 25th of August, 2005, I hereby quash and set aside the order at Annexure-4. So far as fixation of the retirement benefit is concerned, the concerned respondent authorities will consider the grievance of the petitioner about fixation of the retirement benefits on the basis of higher pay scale. If the petitioner is found to otherwise entitle, under the provisions of law, policy, rules and regulations applicable to the petitioner for fixation of retirement benefits on the basis of higher pay scale, a fresh order to that effect may be passed. Concerned respondent authority is at liberty to pass a fresh order, instead of Annexure-4, if they so choose after following the provisions of law, rules and regulations and at least after following principle of natural justice. 7. In view of cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this petition is allowed. Order at Annexure-4 dated 25th of August, 2005 passed by concerned respondent authorities is hereby quashed and set aside, reserving the aforesaid liberty with concern respondent authority to pass fresh order.