ORDER : The instant petition has been maintained by the petitioner for the grant of following relief: “That the office order dated 30.1.2013 and 19.8.2013 may kindly be quashed and the office Memorandum dated 3.12.2010 may kindly be declared as null and void and inapplicable in the case of the petitioner.” 2. The key facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was selected and appointed, as Assistant District Attorney, in the pay scale of Rs.7000-10980, vide Notification, dated 17.10,2006. The petitioner was Ex-Serviceman and as per the demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Non technical) Services Rules, 1972, the entire approved military service of the petitioner was to be counted for seniority and pay fixation, as the petitioner was appointed against the vacancy reserved for Ex-serviceman. Thereafter, the revised pay scale, as applicable in the case of the petitioner was notified and effective w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Consequent upon this, pay of the petitioner was fixed by the competent authority, under the Rules, and on 1.10.2008, fixed at Rs.28,900/- in the revised pay scale i.e. Pay Band-III, Rs.10300-34800 plus Rs.4400/-. The petitioner continued to draw his pay, as per the pay fixation till his promotion to the post of Deputy District Attorney. Consequent upon, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy District Attorney, pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.31,670/-, as on 28.4.2010. Thereafter, on the basis of instructions, pay of the petitioner was revised, pursuant to the issuance of order dated 11.1.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order, dated 11.1.2011, and the same was quashed by affording an opportunity of being heard be granted to him. However, in representation, the petitioner had made detailed submissions in order to justify his pay fixation, as was done by the authorities at two stages i.e. one Office order dated 17.5.2007 and another Office order dated 23.6.2010. However, vide Office order dated 30.1.2013, pay of the petitioner was refixed and reduced to Rs.31390/-, as on 1.4.2012. The petitioner was not aware of the refixation. Ultimately, respondents issued Office order dated 19.8.2013, whereby recovery was ordered to be effected from the salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month and the entire recovery amount was assessed at Rs.2,07,326/-. 3. The petitioner was not aware of the refixation. Ultimately, respondents issued Office order dated 19.8.2013, whereby recovery was ordered to be effected from the salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month and the entire recovery amount was assessed at Rs.2,07,326/-. 3. Reply to the instant writ petition has been filed and it is averred that on 14.1.2013, after considering the entire case of the petitioner by which, he has challenged the revision of his pay and consequent reduction in the salary and recovery from the salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, was found to be justified, as per the Instructions of the Government. It has been further averred that Annexure P-9, has been passed, which has been endorsed to the petitioner, vide No.DPr-B(17)16/2006-881, dated 31.1.2013, by respondent No.3, as well the order passed by the District Attorney, Shimla, (Annexure P-8), has also been endorsed to the petitioner on 19.8.2013, as such, it is totally wrong, on the part of the petitioner to allege that he was not aware of the order dated 30.1.2013. The State Government, has revised the pay scales of its employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006 through Notification dated 26.8.2009. As a sequel to the revision of pay scales retrospectively, all the entitlements are supposed to be revised especially those relating to fixation of pay. Accordingly, the department has revised the procedure for fixation of pay of Ex-Servicemen reemployed, under the Government against the vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen, vide O.M. No.Fin(C)-B(7)-13/2009, dated 3.12.2010 w.e.f. 1.1.2006, whereby pay of an Ex-serviceman, who had joined military service, on or after 1st November, 1962, and was appointed against reserved civil posts, will be fixed, under the provision of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel Rules, by granting the benefit of approved military service in the shape of increment @ 3% of the minimum of pay band plus Grade pay. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondents concerned, have not given the benefit of increment to him in the right perspective, as they had given increment ten years in a one go after multiplying 3% first year increment, which is totally wrong. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the increments are correctly given to the petitioner, as per Rules and, so no interference is required. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the increments are correctly given to the petitioner, as per Rules and, so no interference is required. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire records of the case carefully. 7. After going through the entire documents, which have come on record, and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed, as Assistant District Attorney on 17.10.2006, and his pay was fixed, after granting him increment. Thereafter, on the basis of instructions, pay of the petitioner was required to be revised, pursuant to the issuance of order, dated 11.1.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order, dated 11.1.2011, and the same was quashed by affording an opportunity of being heard be granted to him. 8. Thereafter, the writ petitioner maintained the petition before this Court and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Civil Writ Petition No.482 of 2011-A, titled Dr. Dharam Singh Parmar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 12th November, 2012, passed the following order, relevant portion of the extract reads as under: “On the limited ground that petitioner was not heard before issuance of impugned order dated 11.1.2011 (Annexure P-6), which undisputedly has resulted into violation of statutory and pecuniary rights of the petitioner, as such, the impugned order dated 11.1.2011 (Annexure P-6) is quashed with a direction to the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any further action, if required. Needless to add, action, if any, shall be taken in accordance with law.” 9. Respondents concerned, vide Office Order, dated 30th January, 2013 (Annexure P-9), passed the following order, which reads as under : Directorate of Prosecution Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9 January, 2013 No.DPr-B(17)16/2006- OFFICE ORDER In compliance of judgment dated 12.11.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.482/11 titled Dr. Dharam Singh Parmar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and in pursuance of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Finance (Regulation) Department O.M. Nos. Fin ( c )B(7)13/2009 dated 3.12.2010, 5.5.2011 and 12.5.2011, I, Director of Prosecution, H.P. hereby refix the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Parmar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and in pursuance of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Finance (Regulation) Department O.M. Nos. Fin ( c )B(7)13/2009 dated 3.12.2010, 5.5.2011 and 12.5.2011, I, Director of Prosecution, H.P. hereby refix the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Parmar, who has been appointed as Assistant District Attorney, against vacancy reserved for released Armed Forces Personnel vide Government Notification No.Home (Prose) B (2)2/06 dated 17.10.2006 under the provisions of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and in suppression of this office order No.DPr-B(17)16/2006-4428-31 dated 23.6.2010 on promotion as Dy. District Attorney on 26.4.2010 and after affording personal hearing to the aforesaid officer on 28.12.2012, considering and deciding written submissions on 24.1.2013, as under : x xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx 14. Rate of Increment Rs.530/- @ 3% of minimum of the pay band + Grade Pay (GP) i.e. 3% of 17420/-. This is the sole dispute in the instant case, where 3% increment of the minimum pay band plus Grade Pay, which is for the first year was Rs.530/-, required to be taken as Rs.530/-, and for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth year, required to be taken by the respondents for each year 3% of the salary of previous year. The normal analogy in granting of 3% increment means that 3% of the emoluments of the previous year, this way salary of the writ petitioner is required to be fixed in the manner that 3% of the minimum, for the first year, comes to Rs.530 and for the second year after adding Rs.530, to the emoluments of the first year i.e. 3%, is required to be taken and the next year again 3% of the total emoluments of the previous year is to be taken. 10. So, in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition is required to be allowed and the respondents concerned, are directed to refix the salary of the petitioner, as per Serial No.14, of the impugned Office order, dated 30th January, 2013 (Annexure P-9) applying the above formula. Thereafter, respondents concerned, are directed to calculate the arrears, which shall be paid to the petitioner, within four months from today. No other points argued and thus, needs no consideration. 11. Thereafter, respondents concerned, are directed to calculate the arrears, which shall be paid to the petitioner, within four months from today. No other points argued and thus, needs no consideration. 11. With these observations, the instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. No order as to costs.