JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. —The petitioner was appointed as Driver on 12-9-1979 in the scale of Rs, 260-350 under Baira Siul Project of the respondents. The petitioner was promoted by an order dated 23-8-1985 to the scale of Rs. 330-560 with effect from 12-9-1981 It is to be noted that the said promotion was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee in their letter dated 9-8-1985. He was further promoted as Driver Grade-1 in the scale of Rs. 425 800 with effect from 1-1-1987. That was also on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 2. By Office-Order dated 27-1-1989, the date of the promotion of the petitioner in the first instance was changed as 12-9-1984 instead of 12-9-1981 set out in the order dated 27-1-1989. The second order of promotion dated 7-8-1987 was withdrawn and cancelled by the said Office order. There was a further order dated 15-2-1989, by which the Assistant Manager (F&A) Dam Complex, Chep, was requested to effect necessary recovery from the petitioner with regard to the excess payments made to him. It is stated by the petitioner that a total sum of Rs 18,000 was found to be excess recoverable from him and the proposal was to recover Rs. 750 per mensum, 3. The petitioner made representations to the General Manager, Chamera HE Project, to the effect that there was no justification in passing an order of demotion and that no opportunity was given to him before such orders were passed. Those representations were followed by a representation from the General Secretary of the Union on 19-9-1989 to the General Manager, There was a reply by the Assistant Manager (P&A) to the General Secretary on 3-4-1990, in which it was stated that the promotion order issued to the petitioner earlier inadvertently was only modified according to the extant rules and the rectification of the promotion order for which the workman was eligible could not be said to be demotion, 4. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 29-3-1940 even before the receipt of the aforesaid reply from the respondents, The grounds urged by the petitioner are that the promotion order was granted in 1985 with effect from 12-9-1981 and the petitioner had not committed any mistake for which he could be said to be responsible in the passing of the said order. The said promotion was effected on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, and, therefore, it was a regular promotion Consequently, that cannot be set aside or withdrawn by a communication in 1989 Secondly, it is contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the subsequent order dated 27-1-1989 was passed and the principles of natural justice were violated. Thirdly, it is argued that the respondents are estopped from contending that the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted from 12-9-1981 as per the rules. It is also contended that there was no rule at the relevant time, and, therefore, the promotion was quite in order. 5. In reply to the contentions of the petitioner, it is argued that the mistake was committed in the statement placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee as to the date of joining the post by the petitioner as Driver. It is said that when he joined the post only on 12-9-1979, the statement gave the date 12-9-1978. The persons holding such post would be eligible for promotion only after completion of five years, and, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee took the view that he was eligible for promotion on 12-9-1981 and recommended his promotion. That recommendation as well as the second order of promotion were based on a mistake committed inadvertently by the person concerned in the statement placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, which cannot confer any right on the petitioner as such According to the Rules, then in existence the person could be promoted only after completion of service of five years and petitioner had not completed the said period on 12-9-1981. Hence, the mistake was rectified, according to the respondents, and the petitioner was promoted with effect from 12-9-1984. It is also submitted that the next promotion given in 1987 was not warranted as the petitioners next promotion was due only in 1990. It is also contended that the mistake committed by the respondents will not give rise to any application of principles of estoppel or confer any right on the petitioner himself. There was no necessity for given an opportunity to the petitioner as the records were clear and there was no dispute that the petitioner was appointed only on" 12-9-1979. 6. It is not disputed before us and on the other hand, it is admitted that the petitioner entered service as Driver on 12-9-1979. There was no necessity for given an opportunity to the petitioner as the records were clear and there was no dispute that the petitioner was appointed only on" 12-9-1979. 6. It is not disputed before us and on the other hand, it is admitted that the petitioner entered service as Driver on 12-9-1979. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no rule at that time with regard to the promotion this is belied by the respondents by producing the relevant statements between the Management and the Employees, which were prevailing at that time. No doubt, in the reply fifed by the respondents, nothing was mentioned about the settlements, but a reference was made about the prevailing practice. But when, we pointed out that there could not be any practice without any rule therefor, learned Counsel for the respondents had produced before us, the relevant records to show that there was a Settlement between the Management and the employees during the relevant periods, 7. The first Settlement is dated 17-2-1981. It is stated in clause (f) of the Settlement that the minimum qualifying period for promotion from one grade to the next higher in work charged categories would be as specified therein As regards the un skilled grades, the minimum qualifying period was five years for each grade. Similarly, with regard to the skilled Grade the minimum qualified period was five years for each Grade. The petitioner was admittedly at that time in the scale of Rs. 260-350. Hence, the provision that the promotion would be available only after completion of five years will apply to him also. It is also seen from the Settlement the duration of the Settlement was upto 28-2-1984 and it would also continue to remain binding on the parties until it was terminated in writing-by either party by giving two months notice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Settlement came to an end at an yearly date. 8. But learned Counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of another Settlement, which was entered between the parties in the meetings held on 24-11-1986 and 28-11-1986. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Settlement came to an end at an yearly date. 8. But learned Counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of another Settlement, which was entered between the parties in the meetings held on 24-11-1986 and 28-11-1986. That Settlement also provides for a minimum period of five years for getting eligibility for promotion In the clause relating to promotion policy for workcharged category, it is stated as follows : "A draft Promotion Policy will be formulated by Management within a period of 3 months, which will be discussed with representatives of workmen in March, 1987, Till formulation of a new policy and for the current year, promotions of work-charged employees in their line of promotion at various places will be considered on completion of the period of eligibly of 5 years in existing grade. In the case of Loktak, the matter will be discussed between representatives of workmen and the Management with a view to resolve this issue." 9. Thus, during the entire relevant period, the terms of Settlement were in force and according to those terms, the petitioner was eligible for promotion only after completing five years. 10. Annexure R-l produced along with the reply (through it has been wrongly mentioned as Annexure R-2 in the Annexure itself, it has been referred to only as Annexure R-1 in the reply), shows that the date of joining of the petitioner in the then grade of Rs 260-350 was 12-9-1976. That is obviously and admittedly a mistake the actual date of joining was only 12-9-1979. Hence, the petitioner was eligible for promotion only from 12-9-1984. It was based on the mistake found in the said statement that the Departmental Promotion Committee had recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from 12-9-1981, It is also seen from the said statement that there were atleast three Drivers, who were seniors to the petitioners herein Two of them, by name, Santokh Singh and Harvel Singh entered service on 1-8-1978 and Matwar Singh entered, service on 1-7-1979 Their promotions were with effect from 1-8-1984 and 1-7-1985, respectively. If the petitioner, who had entered service after them, could be promoted with effect from 12-9-1981 that certainly would cause injustice to the three seniors who entered service before him. If the petitioner, who had entered service after them, could be promoted with effect from 12-9-1981 that certainly would cause injustice to the three seniors who entered service before him. It was only on representations made by such people, the respondents woke up and realised that a mistake had been committed it the case of the petitioners promotion. It is only thereafter the petitioners promotion order was changed by the respondents. 11. As the petitioner was not eligible for promotion with effect from 12-9-1981, it cannot be contended that the order passed in 1985 promoting him from 12-9-1981 cannot be-disturbed by the respondents in view of the fact that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner. Whether it was his mistake or not he was not eligible to get promoted with effect from that date. Consequently, the order had to be changed and it has been rightly changed by the respondents. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 154. In that case a Trains Clerk was appointed in service on 18-12-1955. He was promoted as Guard with effect from 18-12-1970. The basic pay was fixed at Rs, 190 per month with effect from 27-10-1970 in a running pay scale 21 years thereafter the Railway thought of reducing his basic pay to Rs 181 per month on the footing that there was some mistake on the part of the Authorities in fixing the initial basic pay. That was also done without any notice to the petitioner therein. The Court quashed the said order and observed as follows : “We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. That the petitioners 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 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18-12-1970. The appellant had obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. 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 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18-12-1970. The appellant had 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 (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) date 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. 13. The ruling will have no application in this case as chat was a case of initial fixation of pay and it was being given to the petitioner therein for 21 years. It is not a case in which an admitted fact was being wrongly shown in the relevant records. 14. Learned Counsel draws our attention to a judgment of this Court, to which one of us was a party, in Mahavir Singh v. Union of India and others, C.W.Ps No. 1434 and 1750 of 1996, judgment dated 22-3-1997. In that case also, the pay scale was initially fixed at Rs. 825-1200 By a later order voluntarily made by the Authorities, it was directed to be read as Rs. 950-1400 By a later order, it was refixed to Rs 825-1200. The petitioners therein were directed to refund the excess amount recoverable by them. This Court quashed the order passed by the Authorities on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioners therein before the impugned orders were passed. This Court placed reliance on the Judgment-of the Supreme Court in Bhawan Shukla’s case (1994) 6 SCC 154. The petitioners therein were directed to refund the excess amount recoverable by them. This Court quashed the order passed by the Authorities on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioners therein before the impugned orders were passed. This Court placed reliance on the Judgment-of the Supreme Court in Bhawan Shukla’s case (1994) 6 SCC 154. As we have found that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shuklas case will not be applicable in this case, the same reasons will apply with respect to the judgment of this Court also. 15. In the result, the impugned orders passed by the respondents in Annexures P-4 and P-5 are unassailable and the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.