Judgment : The petitioner was appointed as Apiary Assistant on 19. 1960. He was promoted as an Apiary Keeper on 19. 1962. On 4. 1964 he was transferred and redesignated as Bee Fieldman. He was ousted from service and again appointed as Junior Bee Fieldman in the scale of Rs.80-2-100 by proceedings dated 8. 1969. By another proceeding dated 19. 1969 the petitioner was posted to the Circle Station, Kulithalai. He was fitted in the scale of Rs.100-4-120 being the scale of a Circle Bee Fieldman. In the proceedings dated 22. 1980, the Assistant Director Village Industries, Salem, pointed out that the petitioner was only a Junior Bee Fieldman and not a Circle Bee Fieldman. He also refers to the proceedings of the Board dated 12. 1978 in this regard. As against that the petitioner made a representation on 20.8.1981 stating that he had been working only as a Circle Bee Fieldman and there was no necessity to re-fix his scale of pay. This representation of the petitioner dated 20.8.1981 was endorsed by the Assistant Director, Village Industries, Salem, who recommended that there was no necessity to change the Service Register or the scale of pay. The following sentence in the report of the Assistant Director is significant: "Thiru Sundaradoss, Junior Bee Fieldman has worked in the circle Station from the time of his appointment i.e. 29. 1969. He was working in the post of Circle Bee Fieldman for the past 10 years without any break in service. He has carried out the duties and responsibilities of the post of Circle Bee Fieldman which is higher than the post of Junior Bee Fieldman." Notwithstanding this strong recommendation, the impugned order came to be passed on 12. 1986 directing a change in the Service Register to the following effect: "For Substitute 1. Circle Bee Fieldation Junior Bee Fieldman 2. Rs.100-4-120 Rs.80-2-100 3. Rs.210-5-295-10-325 Rs.170-5-225 4. Rs. 350-10-120-15-500 Rs.295-5-315-10-475 There was a further direction to issue recovery orders from the salary of the petitioner. The writ petition is to quash the order dated 12. 1986 and to direct the respondents to pay the salary in the scale of Circle Bee Fieldman with attendant monetary benefits and seniority. 2. Rs.100-4-120 Rs.80-2-100 3. Rs.210-5-295-10-325 Rs.170-5-225 4. Rs. 350-10-120-15-500 Rs.295-5-315-10-475 There was a further direction to issue recovery orders from the salary of the petitioner. The writ petition is to quash the order dated 12. 1986 and to direct the respondents to pay the salary in the scale of Circle Bee Fieldman with attendant monetary benefits and seniority. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third re spondent it is stated that there was a mistake in the entry in the Service Register and it was wrongly recorded that the petitioner had been appointed as Circle Bee Fieldman in the scale of Rs. 100-4-120. It is also stated that when the petitioner was transferred to the Coimbatore Development District on the afternoon of 30.9.1970, the wrong entry was repeated and the post in which the petitioner joined duty was shown as "Circle Bee Fieldman." The same entry is continued when the petitioner was transferred to Gobichettipalayam and the petitioner was drawing the scale of pay of Circle Bee Fieldman. It is also contended that the petitioner was not qualified even for the post of Junior Bee Fieldman when he was appointed. The post of Junior Bee Fieldman is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Circle Bee Fieldman. 3. One other aspect of the case which I had not mentioned earlier is, that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, W.P.No.95 of 1986 seeking more or less the very same relief. Mohan, J. as he then was, disposed of the writ petition on 21. 1986 directing the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner and to pass orders on merits. On such reconsideration it was decided to regularise the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Bee Fieldman with effect from 210. 1983 instead of 112. 1984. Consequently, there was a direction to reassess the salary paid to the petitioner and to refix the quantum of recovery. It is contended that the petitioner was never appointed as a Circle Bee Fieldman and the present contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 4. After hearing both sides and after going through the various proceedings placed before the court, I am unable to get away from the stark facts as disclosed in the letter of the Assistant Director, Village Industries, Salem, dated 6. 1981 a portion of which had already been quoted by me. 4. After hearing both sides and after going through the various proceedings placed before the court, I am unable to get away from the stark facts as disclosed in the letter of the Assistant Director, Village Industries, Salem, dated 6. 1981 a portion of which had already been quoted by me. When it is stated that the petitioner had actually worked in the Circle Station, Kulithalai, and had been discharging the duties of a Circle Bee Fieldman for nearly 10 years without any break in service, I am unable to see how the petitioner can be denied the wages due to the post of Circle Bee Fieldman. The lame excuses now given that the petitioner is not qualified and he was never appointed as circle Bee Fieldman, cannot beaccepted to deny an employee of his legitimate wages. Even on the basis of the well-known principle of quantum merit the petitioner is justly entitled to the scale of pay of Circle Bee Fieldman. It is not the fault of the petitioner for having made entry in the Service Register. There is no reason why the Service Register should now be altered and the petitioner’s appointment recorded as Junior Bee Fieldman. Both on record and as per actual work, the petitioner has discharged the duties of a Circle Bee Fieldman and there is no justification for altering the service records after more than 10 years. 5. The impugned order has also been passed without any notice to the petitioner. It is now well settled that an order reducing the salary or the designation of an employee cannot be-passed without observing the principles of natural Justice. 6. For all the above reasons, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition as prayed for. The writ petition is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.