IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8953 of 2023 Decided on 10th March, 2026 Virender Sharma …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent and Annexure P-9, P-10 and P-11 may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent and the respondent University may very kindly be directed to pay the pay scale of Rs.5910-Rs.20200+Rs.1900 as grade pay to the petitioner from 11.10.2023 in view of Annexure P-4 and further the respondent may very kindly be directed to revise the pay scale and salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016.” 2 2. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders were passed at the back of the petitioner without grant of any opportunity of being heard. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that when the service of the petitioner was placed on ad-hoc basis on 10.10.2013, the pay scale as was granted to him was erroneously granted as the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale which was notified by the State Government on 15.07.2013 and adopted by the University on 01.08.2013. Learned counsel further submitted that as soon as this fact came to the notice of the office, the necessary rectification was done by the University. 4. However, there is no rebuttal to this fact that the impugned action was taken against the petitioner without any show cause etc. In the light of this fact there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders are bad as they have been passed at the back of the petitioner. It is settled law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav versus J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 259 that any order which has grave civil consequences 3 as far as a person is concerned cannot be passed and should not be passed at the back of the person. Admittedly, as in the present case, the impugned orders had civil consequence, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the same could not have been passed at the back of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, in light of the above observations, on this ground along this petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed, but with liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh in the matter in case the respondent is so advised in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 10, 2026 (Vinod)