B. M. LAL, J. This petition is directed against an order dated 8-4-1986 passed by the Director of Technical Education, Kanpur, (respondent No. 2) contained in Annexure 13 to this petition, whereby the petitioner is asked to refund the salary paid in excess to him. 2. In short the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Demonstrator in Litho Plate making, Stone Making, Chrome Litho (redesignated as Demonstratar in plate making) in the pay-scale of Rs. 120-8-200-EB-10-300 plus usual Dearness Allowance admissible under the U. P. Government at the Northern Regional School of Printing Tech nology, Allahabad in the year 1959. The appointment was thereafter approved by the U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and since his work was found commendable, therefore, the petitioner was subse quently confirmed in the year 1964. 3. The nomenclature of Northern Regional Schools of Printing Technology, Allahabad was later of charged to Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Technical Education, U. P. and eight posts of Junior Instructors were sanctioned in the pay-scale of Rs. 160-320. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Instructors were Diploma in Printing Technology from a recognised institute with two years skilled experience in the concerned trade or High Schools with ability of high standard production work and 12 years skilled experience in operation and maintenance of the machine of concerned trade. 4. On 16-8-1974 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Instructor plate Mounting in the pay- scale of Rs. 160-320 vide order dated 16-8-1974 contained in Annexure 2 to this petition and accordingly he was paid the salary admissible to the Junior Instructor plate Mounting. 5. However, his appointment/promotion was upto the regular appoint ment/selection by the Director of Technical Education who advertised the posts of Junior Instructors plate Mounting in a daily newspaper northern India Patrika dated 5-11-1974 contained in Annexure 3 to this petition. 6. The petitioner though applied for the post in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement but could not participate in the interview. According to the petitioner no other candidate was also found suitable and selected and, therefore, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Junior Instructor plate Mounting. 7. Subsequently when the pay scale was revised by order dated 16-11-197 the petitioner was placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. According to the petitioner no other candidate was also found suitable and selected and, therefore, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Junior Instructor plate Mounting. 7. Subsequently when the pay scale was revised by order dated 16-11-197 the petitioner was placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 300-500 vide order dated 16-11-1976 contained in Annexure 4 to this petition. 8. It is further submitted that the post was again re advertised on 12-1-1977 in a Hindi daily newspaper aaj contained in Annexure 5 to this petition. In the process of the second selection the petitioner did participate in the Interview/selection and was duly selected vide order dated 13-7-1978 contained in Annexure 6 to this petition. However, this selection was termed as temporary/ad hoc by the Department and subsequently again this pay scale was revised to Rs. 515-860 and the petitioner was allowed to continue on the said pay scale and to draw salary in the new pay scale since July 1, 1979 vide order dated 28-10-1983 contained in Annexure 7 to this writ petition. 9. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the department in respect of arrears of salary for which the petitioner made several repre sentations and lastly made a complaint to the Director of Technical Education U P. Kanpur claiming his arrears of salary but of no avail and vide order dated 8-4-1986 contained in Annexure 13 to the petition the petitioner was informed that he was wrongly promoted to the post of Junior Instructor on the pay-scale of Rs. 300-500 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 515- 860 and, therefore, salary drawn by him on the afore said pay-scale be refunded to the Department by him. In between the petitioner reached to the age of superannuation on 31-7-1986 and recovery proceedings were initiated against him, hence the petitioner filed this petition challenging the recovery proceedings. 10 While filing counter-affidavit the respondents emerged with the plea that the petitioner was wrongly awarded the pay-scale to which he was not entitled and when this mistake was noticed the order placing the petitioner to the higher pay scale was rescinded which ultimately resulted into initiating recovery proceedings. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 12. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 12. No doubt even if the plea as set up by the respondents that the entitled had wrongly been awarded the pay-scale to which he was not entitled and when this mistake was noticed the impugned order- was passed is accepted but it is nowhere stated by the respondents at any point of time that while seeking higher pay-scale on promotion even on ad hoc basis the petitioner had ever misled the authorities. On the other hand the record does indicate that it is the department who offered and allowed the petitioner to continue on the higher pay-scale and the peti tioner discharged his duties on the promoted/a*/ hoc post in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860. 13. Therefore, even if subsequently when it was noticed or discovered that by mistake the petitioner had been promoted or granted monetary benefits, a short question arises as to whether the petitioner so promoted and rendered service on the higher pay-scale for years together would be. liable to refund the salary ?. 14. As observed above nowhere in the counter-affidavit it has been brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner had ever misled or committed any fraud upon the authorities while seeking promotion on the higher post carrying on higher scale of pay. 15. Thus, as far as promotion on the higher scale of pay is concerned it is always open for the department to place its employees in different categories of scale of pay according to the qualifications and experiences possessed by them. 16. This being so, if having convinced with the total record and performance of the petitioner the department promotes the petitioner to the higher post carrying higher pay-scale and the petitioner has done his job satisfactorily till the date of his superannuation, does it lie in the month of the Department to say that the petitioner has been wrongly promoted to the higher pay-scale of Rs. 515-860 and the payment so made can be said to have been made in excess liable to be refunded to the department ? 17. 515-860 and the payment so made can be said to have been made in excess liable to be refunded to the department ? 17. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that while passing the impugned order no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner and thus the principle of audi alteram partem was violated by the respondents resulting into financial consequences. 18. No doubt where any order is passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard which entails severe consequences including financial one, the said order suffers from the principle of natural justice rendering the same a nullity. The rule of audi alteram partem mandates that the decision makers should afford to the person concerned a reason able opportunity of being heard (See Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur, AIR 1990 SC 1402 ). Besides this, in the decision rendered in Shyam Babu v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 621, the Apex Court dealing with similar situation ruled that since the petitioner received the higher pay scale due to no fault of his own, it shall not be just and proper to recover the salary already paid to him. 19. The order impugned to this writ petition is, therefore, liable to be quashed not only on the ground of want of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner but also on the ground that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for securing promotion on the higher scale of pay by misleading the department and, therefore, the payment of salary cannot be recovered as has been held in Shyam Babu Vermas case (supra ). Besides this, the petitioner has discharged his duties efficiently after promotion till the date of his superannuation and if payment of salary has been made at the fault of the department for years together for which petitioner cannot be blamed, the same is not liable to be refunded on the principle of equal pay for equal work as other persons who have been promoted on higher pay-scale were also given the same pay-scale. Therefore, it would not be just and proper to recover the so-called excess salary from the petitioner. 20. Thus, from the discussion aforesaid this petitions succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-4-1986 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed. .