JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 9.2.2001. 2. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1, Nathi Lal by setting aside the order s Annexure- 3 in the writ petition (Annexure-Al with the O.A.) by which the pay of the applicant-respondent had been reduced from Rs. 990/- to Rs. 950/-. 3. For the present purpose, it is relevant to notice that the respondent, Nathi Lal was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 by order dated 10 16.12.1991 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 990/- w.e.f. 17.12.1991. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 4.2.1998 after more than six years, the respondents reduced the fixation of pay from Rs. 990/- to Rs. 950/- with retrospective effect. 4. The Tribunal after noticing the service graph of the applicant before it, noticed that the applicant before it has been appointed on the post of MCC on deputation basis and therefore, principle applicable for fixation of pay on promotion was not applicable. It found that it was a case of appointment to the post of MCC in the year 1991 prior to which he was initially appointed as MCC in the year 1987. The incumbent thereafter repatriated to his permanent post in the year 1989. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal found that in terms of para 1320 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, the earlier period spent on the post in a time scale, would count for the purpose of fixation of re-appointment of the applicant on the post of MCC in the year 1991. 6. The present petitioners contended that since the services were rendered on ex-cadre post, it cannot be reckoned for fixation of pay in another ex-cadre post and the pay in subsequent ex-cadre post shall be fixed under the normal rules with reference to pay in the cadre post and therefore, he will be entitled at the minimum of pay-scale only on his re-appointment as MCC from 10 17.12.1991. However, reading the pare 1320, the Tribunal found that such foundation does not exist and therefore, reduction in pay was not justified. 7. However, reading the pare 1320, the Tribunal found that such foundation does not exist and therefore, reduction in pay was not justified. 7. Before us, it was contended that it was simply a case of rectification of mistake and no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the incumbent before the order could be rectified. 8. We are unable to sustain this plea. The very controversy goes to show that the mistake, if it was there, cannot be said to be merely clerical mistake, which could be rectified without affording an opportunity of hearing to the incumbent. It clearly resulted in reduction of pay in breach of principles of natural justice and without authority of law which could not have been sustained. 9. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 10. Before parting with this case, we notice that the learned counsel for the petitioners urge that perhaps the respondent has since been reverted to his parent substantive post in the parent department and therefore, perhaps he might have been re-fixed in his parent department. The amount subsequently paid to him, while he was continuing on the post of MCC since 17.12.1991 at that time the pay-scale applicable to the post, cannot be recovered from him. 11. The writ petition is. therefore, dismissed in limine. *******