JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard V.K. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 25.07.2012 and 12.08.2012 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2) passed O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 respectively by which the petitioners' salary have been reduced from Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 to Rs. 2400/-. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioners who are working on the post of Constable in the Civil Police and posted at 10th Battalion P.A.C. were appointed in the year 1994, thereafter they had been given first A.C.P. pay Scale on 01.12.2008, subsequently the second ACP /next higher grade pay of Rs. 2800/- has been given to the petitioners w.e.f. 20.05.2012. Thereafter by impugned orders dated 25.07.2012 (Annxure No. 1)passed O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 respectively the said benefit given to the petitioners has been withdrawn and by the order dated 12.08.2012 (Annexure No. 2) passed by O.P.No. 4 the petitioners' Grade pay has been reduced from Rs. 2800/- to Rs. 2400/-. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that prior to passing of the impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been given to the petitioners in order to put forward their version which is a mandatory requirement as per the principles of natural justice and as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (6) SCC 154 . 5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the position which emerge out that in the present case prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 25.07.2012 and 12.08.2012 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively), no opportunity of hearing has been given to the present petitioners. 6. It is well settled that denial of natural justice in a modern society is not acceptable. India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world. 7. It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" ( Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242 ). India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world. 7. It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" ( Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242 ). Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v The Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 has traced its root in Kautilya's Arthasastra in following terms, "Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam -- and of Kautilya's Arthasastra -- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system." 8. In the case of Bhagwan Shukla, v. Union of India and others 1994 (6) SCC 154 wherein paragraph no.3 (relevant portion)held as under: - "The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequence 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 hears. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the 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." 9. Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. 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." 9. Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. JT 2012 (10) SC 476, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph no.3 held as under: - "The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice." 10. As stated above, prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 25.07.2012 and 12.08.2012 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2) passed O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, no opportunity has been given to the petitioners, as such they are liable to be set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 25.07.2012 and 12.08.2012 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2) passed O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority/O.P.No. 4/Commandant, 10th Battalion, P.A.C., Barabanki to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing/representation of their case to the petitioners. 12. The said exercise shall be done by the authority concerned within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed.