HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15188 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Neeraj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Police Constable on 25.07.1984 and was superannuated on 30.04.2025. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that without putting to the writ petitioner notice, now the writ petitioner's salary had been altered while reducing it from Rs. 14430/- to Rs. 13500/- w.e.f. 01.05.2025 resulting to the fact that the pension is now to be paid on the lessor amount based upon the last salary. 3. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the order dated 24.03.2025. 4. Shri R.S. Umrao submits that though once there happens to be an error kept in while determining the salary then it is always open for the employer to alter the same and to correct it as the same is to be done after putting to the notice to the writ petitioner. He submits that from the order impugned, it is not forthcoming whether the writ petitioner put to notice. However, he submits that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to authority to pass fresh orders. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 6. The facts are not in issue. Apparently, the grievance is that the entire exercise undertaken by the respondents while reducing the salary while Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Agarwal, Ritumbara Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajendra Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) altering it is a unilateral action. In the opinion of the Court, any action which is undertaken exparte that to the determent cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 154 had observed as under: "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences 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 heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the 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. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970." 7. Since it is not forthcoming for the order impugned that the writ petitioner was put to notice thus this Court has no option but to set aside the order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a) The order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Sambhal is set aside. (b) The matter be remitted back to authority to pass fresh orders. 9. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition by 07.11.2025 and the authority shall proceed to decide the said proceeding WRIA No. 15188 of 2025 2 with most expedition. Thereafter the later shall put to notice the writ petitioner fix a date for hearing and in case any input is required then the same shall be submitted by the writ petitioner by way of application and an order to be passed within a period three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. October 14, 2025 A. Prajapati WRIA No. 15188 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad