JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. The petitioners are the successors of Shalig Ram, who was an Assistant Librarian in the office of respondent-Board at Dharamshala. An Original Application was filed by the petitioners in the State Administrate Tribunal and on account of the abolition of the said Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and it was registered as CWP(T) numbered above. 2. Heard. 3. Late Shri Shalig Ram aforesaid died in the year 1997, but the respondents- Board did not implement the Office Order dated 2.1.1998 whereby his pay was re-fixed in the pay-scale of `700-1200 w.e.f. 16.7.1983 which was subsequently revised w.e.f.1.1.1986 to `1640- 2925 and new pay-scale of `1650-2925 w.e.f.1.1.1993 for the post, which he held. 4. Vide aforesaid Office Order No.HB (1)Estt.PF-312/97-14-17 dated 2.1.1998 (Annexure A-3), the payment of arrears as calculated was ordered to be paid in cash to the family of the deceased Shalig Ram, but this order was not implemented by the respondent-Board, on the premise that there was an audit objection, but the record does not show as to what was the audit objection and what steps were taken to correct it by the respondent-Board, rather, according to Shri G.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Board, the Office Order aforesaid was based upon the Notification of the Education Department of the State bearing No.Cha (2)68/03-Shiksha-Ka dated 16th June, 1994 (Annexure R-1). 5. Legally, an administrative Order confers no justiciable rights, is subject to exceptions that when the order confers upon the incumbent, the right to have his pay fixed in the manner specified in the Order that forms part of the conditions of his service thus can be enforced as held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.P. Joseph and others, (1973) 1 SCC 194 . Relying upon this judgment even full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jagjit Mohan Singh Bhalla & Others v. Union of India (through Home Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi and others), 1974 (2) SLR 1 held that once an order fixing higher salary or a higher scale is passed by the competent authority, it confers on the persons covered by the order a legal right to claim and recover such salary. 6. of India, New Delhi and others), 1974 (2) SLR 1 held that once an order fixing higher salary or a higher scale is passed by the competent authority, it confers on the persons covered by the order a legal right to claim and recover such salary. 6. In view of the above settled position, the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shalig Ram have a legal right to claim and recover the salary of husband/ father of them, more specifically when it remained in force till date and was expressively allowed to revise the scale as contained in Annexure A-3 above. 7. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is hereby directed to release the financial benefits accrued as per Annexure A-3 above to the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased employee, in cash within a period of two months from the production of the copy of this judgment, failing which it shall carry an interest @ 9% P.A. from the date it fell due. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so as to pending applicants, if any.