Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of Rule for the respondent Corporation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:— “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, respondent herein; (B) Your Lordships be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to and is rightly given pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 (pay scale of the post of Deputy Chief Auditor) with effect from 1.8.2005 and that no correction is required to be made in the same; (C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass a cease and desist order to permanently restrain the respondent herein from revising the petitioner’s extant pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 1.8.2005 and from effecting any recovery from the petitioner in this respect. (D) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the Commissioner of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, respondent herein, and to stay recovery of any amount from the petitioner in pursuance of grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 with effect from 1.8.2005; and (E) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Auditor on 01.06.1989, in the Audit Department of the respondent Municipal Corporation. On 01.08.1996, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Auditor, in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. According to the petitioner, there are three departments in the respondent Corporation, viz. Commissionerate, Audit and Secretariat, which represent separate streams, and no inter se transfers are made from one department to the other. It is averred by the petitioner that separate seniority lists are maintained by each department. 5500-9000. According to the petitioner, there are three departments in the respondent Corporation, viz. Commissionerate, Audit and Secretariat, which represent separate streams, and no inter se transfers are made from one department to the other. It is averred by the petitioner that separate seniority lists are maintained by each department. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of nine years on the post of Senior Auditor, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Auditor. In lieu of promotion, the respondent Municipal Corporation considered him for grant of pay scale of the next promotional post (Deputy Chief Auditor). By order dated 05.04.2007, the petitioner was granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 (pay scale of a Deputy Chief Auditor) with effect from 01.08.2005, as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Arrears of pay, with effect from 01.08.2005, were also paid to the petitioner in the year 2007. The petitioner was given the benefit of the higher pay scale for more than three years. Thereafter, after adoption of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission by the respondent Corporation, order dated 28.10.2010 was issued, directing that the pay scale which was revised from Rs. 5500-9000 to Rs. 8000-13500 in respect of all employees who had been given said benefit, is required to be corrected. The impact of the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 is that the employees, including the petitioner, would now be entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, and not the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. Consequent directions have also been issued to effect recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner, from the date the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 was given to him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned advocate for Ms. Viraj Fozdar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 has been passed without issuance of prior show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is against the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the same may be quashed and set aside. 5. It is further submitted that the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the same may be quashed and set aside. 5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent Corporation, wherein it is stated that as per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, as against the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000, the higher pay scale to which the petitioner would be entitled is Rs. 6500-10500, and not Rs. 8000-13500, which was wrongly given to the petitioner. 6. It is not denied by the respondent Corporation that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, though the learned advocate for the respondent Corporation has submitted that no representation has been made by the petitioner, after passing of the impugned order. 7. When the matter is taken up today, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation states, upon instructions from Mr. R.M. Jogarana, Legal Officer, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, that as the petitioner has not been granted an opportunity of hearing before passing order dated 28.10.2010, he shall be granted such an opportunity by the respondent Corporation, and a fresh order shall be passed thereafter. 8. In view of the above statement made by the learned advocate for the respondent Corporation, the Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. It is a settled position of law that no order resulting in infliction of civil consequences should be passed against a person without affording him, or her, a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation, which may have led to the passing of the impugned order. As such, the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside, being violative of the principles of natural justice. 9. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 154 are relevant, and are reproduced hereinbelow:— “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18-12-1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He 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. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. 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 (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25-7-1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17-9-1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25-7-1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18-12-1970.” In view of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, which are fully applicable to the facts obtaining in the present case, the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. The Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned, order in accordance with law. 11. The petition is partly-allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. P P P P P