### Pay Re-fixation Order Against Deceased Employee Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice and Is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner, a widow receiving a family pension, challenged an order dated 21.11.2017 issued by the respondents which re-fixed and reduced the pay scale of her deceased husband, Narendra Singh Sikarwar.

The husband had expired on 15.03.2012, yet the impugned order was issued against him posthumously without any show-cause notice or opportunity for a hearing.

The petitioner contended that the same impugned order had already been set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench and upheld by a Division Bench in the case of a similarly situated employee, Parmanand Kushwah (W.P. No. 9463/2018).

The State conceded that the order had indeed been set aside in the earlier litigation.

Whether the impugned order dated 21.11.2017, reducing the pay scale of a deceased employee without notice, is legally sustainable in light of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted to similarly situated persons whose challenges to the same order were previously allowed.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of Audi Alteram Partem (natural justice), establishing that no order adverse to the service conditions or financial interests of an employee can be passed without providing a prior opportunity to be heard.

It further relied on the doctrine of parity and the precedent set in Parmanand Kushwah vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No. 9463/2018), which held that pay re-fixation resulting in reduction requires due process and, for retired employees, may require the concurrence of the Governor.

The Court observed that the respondents failed to demonstrate that any notice or personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner or the deceased employee's estate before the pay scale was reduced.

The Court noted that the impugned order was identical to the one already quashed in Parmanand Kushwah, where it was found that the State had ignored previous judicial directions to provide a "due and sufficient opportunity" before taking adverse action.

Since the controversy was identical to the decided precedent—which had been affirmed by a Division Bench—the Court determined that the principle of mutatis mutandis applied, necessitating the same relief for the current petitioner to avoid inconsistent judicial outcomes.

The court held that the respondents must afford a personal hearing before passing any fresh orders regarding pay re-fixation.

Following the precedent in Parmanand Kushwah, the Court ordered the respondents to complete this exercise within three months and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner for the hardship caused by repetitive litigation.