Judgment G.K. Vyas, J.-This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1636/2001 whereby, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the State against the order dated 26.03.1999 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the Tribunal hereinafter), the learned Single Judge observed that so far as question of merit of revision of pay is concerned, the Tribunal has left it to the State to re-decide the issue only after affording an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law which does not call for interference as no decision adverse to the petitioners (the appellants herein) has been given by the Tribunal when on admitted facts such direction was imminently called for particularly when the revision of pay-scale has been made after the respondent has retired, without notice to her which may also entail an enquiry, whether such an order can at all be made after the respondent is no more in service so as to affect her pension adversely which has been determined on the basis of last pay drawn by her. 2. The respondent No. 1 (herein) challenged order of the State dated 111.1997 vide which re-fixation was ordered allegedly on the ground of earlier wrong fixation and recovery of the excess amount was ordered. The Tribunal observed that the applicant was not at fault for her earlier fixation and without affording opportunity of hearing order of re-fixation could not be passed and, therefore, restrained the appellants (herein) from making the recovery in pursuance of order dated 111.1997 and set it aside. Against this order of the Tribunal the appellants preferred aforenoted writ petition. 3. Since, the impugned orders are not adverse to the appellants, we refrain from entering into the merit of the case, more so when the impugned orders have been made in the light of settled proposition of law that no adverse orders without affording opportunity can be passed which may occasion civil consequences against the employees. In the instant case, the appellant State almost penalised the respondent employee with retrospective recovery on account of excess amount paid to her allegedly due to wrong fixation which the State is trying to justify as only a rectification of error. This is fallacious. No consequential order can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, the appellant State almost penalised the respondent employee with retrospective recovery on account of excess amount paid to her allegedly due to wrong fixation which the State is trying to justify as only a rectification of error. This is fallacious. No consequential order can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned orders are just and proper and do not call for any interference. 4. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.