( 1 ) ). Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner, a primary school teacher in village Dalod, Taluka Viramgam, Dist. Ahmedabad, by filing this Special Civil Application before this Court, challenged therein the legality of the order dated 19th July 1984, Annexure a, of Taluka Development Officer, under which his pay was reduced from Rs. 560. 00 to Rs. 540. 00 from 1-1-1984.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner was given selection grade from 1-1-1974 and he continued to enjoy this selection grade till the order dated 19th July 1984 has been made. The petitioners pay has been reduced from 1-1-1984 on the ground that he was reverted from 1-1-1975 and as such he was not entitled to get selection grade from 1-1- 1974 and his entitlement in the said scale will be from 1-1-1984.

( 3 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner made two-fold contentions in this special Civil Application. Firstly, he has contended that the order dated 19th July 1984 has been made by the respondent without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This order has caused serious civil consequences as the pay of the petitioner has been reduced and as such, it is an order which has caused prejudice to the petitioner, and the same should have been passed after following principles of natural justice. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that even if it is an administrative order but if it results in civil consequences, i. e. , reduction of pay, then principle of natural justice has to be followed by respondent before making such prejudiced order against the petitioner. It has next been contended that the recovery could not have been ordered nor it could have been effected. It is not a case where the petitioner, by making some concealment of fact or playing some fraud, has got the order of selection grade from 1-1-1974. Whatever has been paid to the petitioner for all these years has been paid in pursuance of the order passed by respondents. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the order. I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties.

( 4 ) ). The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is wholly devoid of any substance. The order dated 19th July 1984 nowhere says that whatever amount has been paid to the petitioner of the selection grade from 1-1-1974 has to be recovered from him. The order is plain and simple in language and it only gives out one reading that the pay of the petitioner has been reduced from 1-1-1984 without any further consequences. The Counsel for the petitioner has not produced any other document on record under which the concerned authority has ordered for recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner during all these years. In view of this fact, the second contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any substance.

( 5 ) ). The order dated 19th July 1984 reduces the pay of the petitioner from Rs. 560. 00 to Rs. 540. 00. It has certainly resulted in civil consequences, i. e. , reduction of pay of the petitioner. It is a prejudiced order which causes monetary loss to the petitioner not only during his service, but also it may effect his pension and other retirementary benefits. The Apex Court in the case of the Scheduled Caste and Weaker section Welfare Association (Regd.) and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , reported in AIR 1991 SC 1117. held that administrative order, if effects rights of a citizens, principles of natural justice to be complied with. Now there remains a thin line in between administrative order and quasi-judicial order. A reference in this respect may have to be to the decision of Apex Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1970 SC 150. The order dated 19th July 1984 has certainly resulted in monetary loss to the petitioner. His basic pay has been reduced which will certainly result in further redu