JUDGMENT : [Satyen Vaidya, J.] 1. Heard. 2. By way of instant Letters Patent Appeal, appellants have assailed judgment dated 24.5.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 12583 of 2008. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that the appellants vide memorandum dated 4.12.2004, Annexure PA with Writ record, required the predecessor in interest of respondents herein (for short ‘original respondent’) to show cause as to why his salary be not re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and recoveries, as mentioned in the memorandum under reference, be not affected from him. Aggrieved against aforesaid memorandum dated 4.12.2004, original respondent approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA(M) 58 of 2005, which, on abolition of the Tribunal came to be listed before this Court as CWP(T) 12583 of 2008. 4. Noticeably, filing of OA(M) 58 of 2005 was the second round of litigation initiated by the original respondent on substantially identical cause. It will be relevant to notice the factual back ground in which original respondent had to seek legal remedy in the first instance and thereafter to approach the Tribunal by way of OA(M) 58 of 2005 for the second time. 5. Original respondent was a Medical Officer working with Health Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500, in pre-revised scales as on 1.1.1996. On revision of pay scales, original respondents became entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,150 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accordingly, the pay of original respondent was fixed at Rs. 12375/- as on 1.1.1996 vide office order dated 22.10.1998 annexed as Annexure PB with writ record. As per Annexure PB, the pay of original respondent as on 8.6.1996 was fixed at Rs. 14,300/- and at Rs. 14,700/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. In addition original respondent was also held entitled to NPA at prevalent rates. Subsequently, vide office order dated 23.7.2001 the pay of original respondent was re-fixed by appellants @ Rs. 12,000/- as on 1.1.1996 and Rs. 14,300/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. A copy of office order dated 23.7.2001 finds place as Annexure PC in writ record. 6. 14,700/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. In addition original respondent was also held entitled to NPA at prevalent rates. Subsequently, vide office order dated 23.7.2001 the pay of original respondent was re-fixed by appellants @ Rs. 12,000/- as on 1.1.1996 and Rs. 14,300/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. A copy of office order dated 23.7.2001 finds place as Annexure PC in writ record. 6. Original respondent assailed office order dated 23.7.2001 before H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of OA(M) No. 383 of 2001, which came to be decided by the Tribunal on 12.11.2002 in following terms:- “It is admitted position from the pleadings and it has been fairly and squarely admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that no show cause notice was given to the applicant before reducing his pay scale. In view of this position the impugned order Annexure- PA is quashed and set aside. Accordingly the present Original Application stands disposed of with no order as to costs. However, a copy of order dated November 12, 2002 passed in OA(M) 357/2001 be also placed on this case file.” 7. The order dated 12.11.2002 passed by H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) 383 of 2001 attained finality. None of the parties thereto had assailed said order. Nonetheless, appellant No. 3 issued memorandum dated 4.12.2004, as noticed above, to the original respondent. Aggrieved against the said memorandum dated 4.12.2004, original respondent then approached the H.P. Administrative Tribunal for the second time by way of OA(M) 58 of 2005. The grievances of original respondent in OA(M) 58 of 2005/CWP(T) 12583 of 2008 mainly was that since the office order dated 23.7.2001 Annexure PC with the writ record had been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.11.2002, the re-fixation of pay and recovery from original respondent vide memorandum dated 4.12.2004 Annexure-PA was illegal and hence unwarranted. 8. Learned Single Judge disposed of CWP(T) 12583 of 2008 vide impugned judgment dated 24.5.2011 in following terms:- “10. Order Annexure PB, shows that the petitioner completed 14 years of service on 8.6.1996. If that is so, petitioner became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 14,300- 18,150, in the revised four tier pay scale system, w.e.f. 8.6.1996. However, order Annexure PC, shows that this pay scale, due on completion of 14 years service, which is Rs. 14,300-18,150/-, was given to him w.e.f. 1.1.1996. If that is so, petitioner became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 14,300- 18,150, in the revised four tier pay scale system, w.e.f. 8.6.1996. However, order Annexure PC, shows that this pay scale, due on completion of 14 years service, which is Rs. 14,300-18,150/-, was given to him w.e.f. 1.1.1996. No explanation has been put forward by the respondents for not giving him pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150, w.e.f. 8.6.1996 and fixing his pay in the said scale accordingly. Now, if the petitioner is entitled to this sale on completion of 14 years of service and he completed such service on 8.6.1996, he should be given the benefit to pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150, w.e.f. 8.6.1996 and his pay be fixed at Rs. 14,300/-, the minimum of the aforesaid pay scale, w.e.f. 8.6.1996 and future increments be given as per Rules. 11. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, with the direction that pay of the petitioner, in the pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150, be fixed at Rs. 14,300/- w.e.f. 8.6.1996 and the order of pay fixation, be revised accordingly. Recovery, if any, shall be effected based on such revised order.” 9. The appellants have taken exception to the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellants were within their rights to re-fix the pay of original respondent in terms of the decision taken by the State Government from time to time and learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate such legal position in right perspective. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General representing the appellants raised a specific contention that as per the guidelines of Finance department dated 26.3.2000, appellants had rightly re-fixed the pay of original respondent as he was entitled only to a minimum pay scale of Rs.12,000/- (revised) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and to the pay scale of rs. 14,300/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The aforesaid entitlement of original respondent as per the appellants, was keeping in view the Scheme of the government under which the original respondent was entitled for jump in pay scale on completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service. 10. Adverting to the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, it is clearly evident that the original respondent has been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150 w.e.f. 8.6.1996, when the original respondent had completed 14 years of service. 10. Adverting to the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, it is clearly evident that the original respondent has been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,150 w.e.f. 8.6.1996, when the original respondent had completed 14 years of service. It was in such view of the matter that the appellants were directed to re-fix the pay of the original respondent @ Rs. 14,300 w.e.f. 8.6.1996 and to effect recovery, if any, on such basis. 11. Thus, the only dictum against the appellants was to re-fix the pay of original respondent at Rs. 14,300 as on 8.6.1996, rest of the contentions raised by the original respondent stood negated by implication. 12. The appellants have not disputed the fact that original respondent had completed 14 years of service as on 8.6.1996. They have also not been able to convincingly show as to why the original respondent was not entitled for pay @ Rs. 14,300/- w.e.f. 8.6.1996, when he had completed 14 years of service. Being so, the challenge laid to impugned judgment dated 24.5.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) 12583 of 2008 by the appellants is clearly without merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.