JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.P. Joshi for the petitioner, so also learned AGP Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam for respondent - State. Perused the record. 2. The petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court under Article 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.09.2011 regarding fixation of his pay at the fag end of her retirement i.e. only when pensionary benefits are to be released in her favour with retrospective effect. Petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent - authority to pay the pension immediately as per the last 10 months salary/pay drawn by the petitioner as per Annexure C and for further directions that no recovery can be made from the petitioner pursuant to salary granted in favour of the petitioner on 03.03.2010 and 12.04.2010. Thereby to quash and set aside the order of recovery dated 23.09.2011 i.e. Annexure E. 3. It is undisputed fact that petitioner has completed qualified services for the pension as per the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002, since she has joined the services with the respondent on 18.11.1976 and thereafter she was appointed as Librarian on 04.05.1979 pursuant to her success in an interview and her qualification for the post of Librarian. Thereby, petitioner has taken charge as Librarian on 08.05.1979. Considering her date of birth, she retired from services on 31.08.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. At that time, she was drawing Rs. 30,470/- as monthly salary from the post of Librarian and, therefore, she has contended that she is entitled for the pension considering such last salary and salary of last 10 months. 4. However, on 23.09.2011, respondents have revised the pay scale of the petitioner and lowered it down to Rs. 15,600 - 19,100/- thereby making the total basic salary of the petitioner as Rs. 21,600/- instead of Rs. 24,470/- + Rs. 6000/- i.e. Rs. 30,470/- already drawn by her till her date of retirement. It is contended that there is no disclosure of any reason for such revision of pay scale that too after the date of retirement by impugned order and, therefore, petitioner has no option but to serve a legal notice to the respondents on 29.09.2011. 24,470/- + Rs. 6000/- i.e. Rs. 30,470/- already drawn by her till her date of retirement. It is contended that there is no disclosure of any reason for such revision of pay scale that too after the date of retirement by impugned order and, therefore, petitioner has no option but to serve a legal notice to the respondents on 29.09.2011. In response to such notice the Government Science College, Gandhinagar i.e. respondent No. 5 has conveyed the petitioner that as per the government pension rules, the college has issue a letter on 06.09.2010 i.e. almost a year before the date of her retirement but petitioner has submitted incomplete pension papers only on 29.06.2011. It is further disclosed that the process of pay verification as per Revision of Pay Rules 2009 was done with effect from 01.01.2006. Her pay was fixed on 23.09.2011. In such reply, respondent No. 5 has tried to find the fault with the petitioner but ultimately they have no option but to say that her pension papers were already forwarded to the concerned authority immediately after receiving it. It cannot be ignored that so far as office orders and other details are concerned, they are otherwise available with the employer and, therefore, it is the duty of the employer itself to disclose such relevant information in pension papers rather than asking the employee to provide an order of pay fixation, which is generally passed by the government authorities and received by the employer at the earliest. 5. Considering the basic factual information as discussed herein above, initially, we have to apply the settled legal position to all such cases whereby, now, it becomes clear that prior opportunity of being heard ought to have been afforded to the employee by the employer, if there is reduction of pay-scale on such ground even if it was being wrongly fixed at the initial stage and thereby, order of reduction of pay-scale without affording opportunity, is violative of principle of natural justice. Such principle is emphasized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 5.8.1994 in the case of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 154 . 6. Whereas the relevant Pension Rules are also quite clear. Such principle is emphasized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 5.8.1994 in the case of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 154 . 6. Whereas the relevant Pension Rules are also quite clear. Rule 46 of the Rules, specifically provides for - "A Retiring Pension shall be granted to a Government employee who voluntarily retires, or is retired, before attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with the provisions contained in of Rule 10 or Rules 47 to 51. Whereas Rule 43 specifically describes what is 'Pensionable Pay', wherein it is provided that the 'pensionable pay' means the average pay earned by a Government employee during the last ten months' service. Sub-Rule (2) makes it clear that for the purpose of Sub-Rule (1), the pay means pay as defined in Rule 9 (53) drawn by a Government employee in officiating or substantive capacity on permanent/or temporary or tenure post. Though explanations to such Rule 43 are not much relevant in this case, the bare perusal of all such explanation makes it clear that consideration of 'pensionable pay' is a liberal issue and that too in favour of the employees on every count and therefore, the aim and objective of Pension Rules is quite clear i.e. to provide pension to the employees who have completed qualifying service for pension without being more technical on several counts. Similarly so far as quantum of pension is concerned, it is made clear that 'pensionable pay' means the average pay earned by a Government employee during the last 10 months' service. 7. Rule 42 specifically provides that when a Government employee completes twenty years' of qualifying service, the Head of Department in the case of a Gazetted officer or the Head Office in the case of a Non-gazetted Government employee in consultation with the Director of Pension & Provident Fund, shall, in accordance with the rules for the time being in force, verify the service rendered by such a Government employee, determine the qualifying service and communicate to him in Form-2 the period of qualifying service so determined. Though such verification shall be subject to final verification of qualifying service to be made at the time of retirement of the Government employee, the verification done under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be treated as final and shall not be reopened except when necessitated by a subsequent change in the rules and orders governing the conditions under which the service qualifies for the purpose of pension. 8. Therefore, a cogent perusal of the above referred decision in the case of Bhagwan Shukla (supra) and the applicable Rules, makes it clear that a person is entitled to pension based upon his last 10 months' salary and verification is to be done in Form-2, which is to be provided to the petitioner so as to allow him to explain about any discrepancy or short-coming in such verification and thereby, Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed that in absence of affording an opportunity to employee, the reduction in salary at the time of fixing pension is violation of principle of natural justice and it cannot be permitted because in that case, the employee has to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. 9. However, though facts and Rules are very much clear, the respondents have resisted the petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply on 14.3.2012 contending that in fact the petitioner has been promoted pursuant to office order dated 14.8.1991, but with a condition that she has to possess the qualification required for such promotion in prescribed time period. For such prescribed period of time, reference of G.R. dated 30.3.1988 is made in such order. Copy of such G.R. is also annexed with such affidavit-in-reply. The bare perusal of such G.R. makes it clear that it is absolutely vague in nature and without disclosing relevant information, but the preamble of the resolution on the contrary makes it clear that such G.R. is issued only with a view to extend some benefit to the Librarians like the present petitioner, who are otherwise not getting the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600. Whereas, the condition No. 1 of such G.R. on the contrary makes it clear that Librarians, who are in service on or before 19.12.1983 are not required to acquire the qualification as per Schedule-I and to all such Librarians pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 is already awarded w.e.f. 1.4.1980. 700-1600. Whereas, the condition No. 1 of such G.R. on the contrary makes it clear that Librarians, who are in service on or before 19.12.1983 are not required to acquire the qualification as per Schedule-I and to all such Librarians pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 is already awarded w.e.f. 1.4.1980. It is undisputed fact that petitioner is in service as Assistant Librarian since 18.11.1976 and when there was vacancy on the post of Librarian, she applied for such post and her name was forwarded by Gujarat Public Service Commission to the respondents considering her eligibility at the relevant time. Pursuant to such exercise, respondents have issued interview call dated 28.11.1978 to the petitioner calling her for interview on 12.12.1978 for the process of selecting a Librarian. Such letter simply confirms that the candidates who have the qualification of graduate with University Diploma or Degree in Library Science are eligible for the post of Librarian. It is undisputed fact that at that time, petitioner already acquired a qualification of Bachelor of Library Science, which she has acquired in April, 1976 and therefore, she was entitled to be appointed as Librarian and that was the reason why she was called for the interview. It is also undisputed fact that pursuant to such recruitment process, since petitioner succeeded in such competitive selection process, she was appointed as Librarian by order dated 4.5.1979, otherwise she was in Government service right from the year 1976. Thereby, one thing is clear and certain that petitioner was appointed as Librarian because she was acquiring the qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Library Science by the University, which is certainly more than what is required by the Department at the relevant time in the year 1978. 10. However, the respondents have contended by their order dated 14.8.1991 that they have promoted the petitioner and transferred from the post of Librarian to the post of Librarian - Class-III and thereby, her scale has been revised from Rs. 1400-2300/- to Rs. 2200-4000 (UGC). 10. However, the respondents have contended by their order dated 14.8.1991 that they have promoted the petitioner and transferred from the post of Librarian to the post of Librarian - Class-III and thereby, her scale has been revised from Rs. 1400-2300/- to Rs. 2200-4000 (UGC). However, at such stage, as per the contention of the respondents, such promotion by transfer or transfer with promotion was conditional and they are relying upon such order dated 14.8.1991 wherein condition No. 1 is to the effect that if a person appointed on such post is not holding the qualification for such post, then, as per revised G.R. dated 30.3.1988, he or she should acquire such qualification in given time period. However, neither the basic qualification nor the time period is disclosed either in such office order dated 14.8.1991 or even in G.R. dated 30.3.1988. The second condition in such office order is quite surprising and there are no words to name such condition that whether it is a threat or otherwise to the employees who are termed to be promoted by way of transfer. 11. Though respondents have contended that in case of petitioner, such transfer was because of her own request, there is no record to substantiate such submission and therefore, there is no bearing in such submission at this stage, but the second condition in such office order dated 14.8.1991 on the contrary makes it clear that such transfer, which is termed as promotion also, is probably not because of any request by the employee, but it is a compulsion for the employee to go to the place where he or she is transferred when it is stated that if such promotion is not accepted, then, there is no guarantee that employee may be continued in his/her own post. 12. Whereas, so far as posting of petitioner is concerned, the same order specifically confirms that she has been posted at newly created post of Librarian at Government Commerce College, Gandhinagar. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the employer i.e. respondents are in need of Librarian at Gandhinagar and therefore, she was posted there. The office order further confirms with specific name of the petitioner that undertaking shall be taken from her that she will clear the qualification for such post. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the employer i.e. respondents are in need of Librarian at Gandhinagar and therefore, she was posted there. The office order further confirms with specific name of the petitioner that undertaking shall be taken from her that she will clear the qualification for such post. In that case, there must be an undertaking signed by the petitioner on record and if such undertaking is not coming forward, then, there is reason to believe that no such undertaking was required considering that the petitioner was already having qualification, which is required for the post where she is posted. Similarly, again there is a warning in the order specifically with the name of the petitioner that if she let-goes such promotion as College Librarian in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, then, she would not be entitled to revision of pay-scale or as submitted by the respondents, increments in her regular scale. Therefore, to that extent such office order is punitive in nature, whereby the punishment is already declared in anticipation of denial to accept promotion. This is nothing, but substantial irregularity, illegality, perverseness, arbitrariness and against the principles of natural justice and violative of constitutional rights. 13. When respondents are referring the G.R. dated 30.3.1988 in such office order dated 14.8.1991, in addition to criticism of the G.R. herein above, the perusal of G.R. now again makes it clear that though there is reference of some Schedule in such G.R., the same does not have any such Schedule attached or annexed with it. However, it is submitted by the respondent that reference of such Schedule is with reference to the previous G.R. dated 19.12.1983, which is taken into consideration in such G.R. dated 30.3.1988. Therefore, now, respondents have come forward with compilation of 32 pages because of one additional reason that initially, copy of G.R. dated 30.3.1988 at Annexure-R2 was illegible. Such compilation is to be taken on record. Therefore, now, respondents have come forward with compilation of 32 pages because of one additional reason that initially, copy of G.R. dated 30.3.1988 at Annexure-R2 was illegible. Such compilation is to be taken on record. Therefore, now, G.R. dated 19.12.1983 is made available to the Court, which is (on page 15 in such compilation) having Schedule-I as Annexure-1 with such G.R. If we peruse Annexure-1, now, it becomes clear that the minimum qualification for Librarian as per such G.R. is first or second Class B.A./B.Sc./B.Com Degree plus first or second Class Masters of Library Science Degree or first or second Class M.A./M.Sc./M.Com Degree and first or second Class Bachelor in Library Science or Diploma in Library Science. Therefore, now, respondents are interpreting such qualification to the effect that in addition to Bachelor in Library Science, the employee must have a Master's Degree either in Arts, Commerce or Science or if they are only graduate in any of such stream, then, they should have Master's degree of Library Science. Whereas, Annexure-2 with the same G.R. provides minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of Librarians in the scale of Rs. 700-1600. Surprisingly, when such qualification is for Librarians, it is provided in such schedule that qualification for Librarians should be good academic record with atleast higher second class Master's degree in a subject other than Library Science with Master's degree in Library Science. However, the basic difference in both the schedules are to the effect that qualification in Annexure-2 is for future recruitment and qualification in Annexure-1 is for existing incumbents. Therefore, prima facie it becomes clear that probably, respondents are trying to emphasize that since petitioner is not having Master's Degree in Library Science, she is not entitled to be posted as Librarian or to continue as such and therefore, she is not entitled to pension as per her last 10 months' salary as Librarian, though she is permitted to serve as Librarian right from 1991 till the date of her retirement i.e. in the year 2011. At this stage, it cannot be ignored that practically, petitioner has already acquired the qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Library Science and therefore, if at all she was not possessing the qualification as per G.R. dated 19.12.1983, then, she could never have been appointed or promoted as Librarian. At this stage, it cannot be ignored that practically, petitioner has already acquired the qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Library Science and therefore, if at all she was not possessing the qualification as per G.R. dated 19.12.1983, then, she could never have been appointed or promoted as Librarian. The G.R. dated 19.12.1983 nowhere provides for such conditional promotion, but such condition was thereafter added in such G.R. by another G.R. dated 30.3.1988. However, in that case, as already stated herein above, the condition No. 1 specifically confirms that whoever is serving as Librarian on or before 19.12.1983, are not required to acquire additional qualification as per Schedule-I, which is referred herein above and their pay should be revised in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980. Thus, factually, now, it becomes clear that petitioner is serving as Librarian since 4.5.1979 i.e. well before 19.12.1983 and therefore, if at all condition in office order dated 14.8.1991 is available to her, she is exempted from acquiring such additional qualification as discussed herein above. In addition to that, as already stated herein above, if there is no undertaking received from the petitioner, as stated in such office order and thereby, if she is allowed to serve as Librarian on the same post even after completing 5 years of service from the promotion and transfer i.e. 1996 till 2011, then, now, it is to be believed and confirmed that respondents have let-go such condition and therefore, now, they are not entitled to deny the pensionary benefits to the petitioner based upon last 10 months' salary earned by her, which was purely because of her service rendered as Librarian and not because of any extra benefit granted to her. Therefore, when petitioner has already completed qualifying service for pension, she is entitled to pension, which is to be calculated considering her last 10 months' salary without any other calculations. 14. As already discussed herein above, the revision of pay after retirement and that too without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, to explain her case, is illegal and unwarranted. 15. 14. As already discussed herein above, the revision of pay after retirement and that too without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, to explain her case, is illegal and unwarranted. 15. After the affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder on 23.6.2012 confirming that in case of similarly situated Librarian, namely, D.J. Bhatt, who was also appointed as Librarian in 1979 with the petitioner, no such objection was raised and he is allowed to get all the benefits, which she should get for the post of Librarian and thereby, there is clear arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authority. 16. Rest of the averments in affidavit-in-reply are already considered herein above, but, it is now made clear that petitioner has been given benefit of Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 12.4.2010 and therefore, it becomes clear that even at the time of extending the benefit of different pay commissions, the respondents have never bothered to confer or convey that she is not entitled to the scale, which she was getting throughout her career.