Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed not to effect any recovery from the petitioners pension or gratuity on the pretext of excess payment and the order dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure-9) and order (Annexure-9/A) be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Helper to Mechanic w.e.f. 03.05.1966. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Helper to Mechanic w.e.f. 03.05.1967 vide order dated 06.06.1968. Initially the petitioner was appointed in Rajasthan Agriculture University and on formation of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, he became the employee of the same. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Pump Operator on 12.08.1986. 3. It has also been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was not granted first selection grade on the ground that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Pump Operator in the year 1986. However, he was granted second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service w.e.f. 25.01.1992. The petitioner was granted third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service w.e.f. 23.05.1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600/-. 4. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that pursuant to implementation of recommendations of Vth pay commission, the petitioners pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-at Rs. 5,150/-. The petitioner retired on 18.09.2003 and, at that time, he was receiving the pay in the aforesaid scale. 5. The petitioner also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was not granted two increments and D.A. immediately preceding the retirement. That apart, on account of objection, having been raised on the ground that the petitioner has been wrongly granted selection grade, the gratuity has not been released in favour of the petitioner till this date. 6. It has also been averred in the writ petition that as per the respondents, after the petitioner was promoted, in the year 1986, his services were to be reckoned for the purpose of grant of selection grade, whereas as per the submission of the petitioner, the petitioner was not granted first promotion from 1966 to 1986 i.e., for 20 years, and thus, he became entitled for two selection grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of services. Not only this, after the year 1986, he became entitled for grant of third selection grade on account of stagnation in the year 1995. 7. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that now so far as the pension for the month of March, 2005 is concerned, which was presently being paid to the petitioner at Rs. 5,000/-, the same has been reduced to Rs. 3,000/-on the pretext of recovery per month. 8. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that after filing of the writ petition, the order dated 22.03.2005 was served on the petitioner, as per which, an amount of Rs. 2, 17,596/-was recoverable from commutation, gratuity and pension. A provisional pension order dated 24.03.2005 has also been issued fixing the pension of the petitioner at Rs. 2,350/-. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that pay scale of the petitioner has been revised vide statement of pay fixation (Annexure-9-A) w.e.f. 01.09.1996. 9. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents and it has been alleged that the petitioner was appointed afresh on the post of Pump Operator vide order dated 07.08.1986. Therefore, the services of the petitioner for the purpose of selection grade shall be counted from the date he joined the post of Pump Operator i.e., 12.08.1986. Therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been granted selection grade on completion of 18 and 27 years of service. 10. Admittedly, the order dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure-9) and revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1996 entails evil and civil consequences on the petitioner, but before passing the order dated 22.03.2005 reducing the pension of the petitioner and fixing the same at Rs. 2,350/-and revising the pay scale of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1996, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner and this fact has not been controverted by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Thus, the impugned orders (Annexure-9 and Annexure-A) have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. 11. During the course of argument, it has also been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the concerned authority be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. During the course of argument, it has also been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the concerned authority be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This request appears to be genuine one and the Counsel for the respondents has also not controverted the request made by the Counsel for the petitioner. 12. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 22.03.2005 alongwith PPO dated 24.03.2005 (Annexure-6) and revision of pay of the petitioner vide statement (Annexure-9-A) are quashed and set aside, However, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today, and the concerned authority is directed to consider and decided the same either way in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of the said representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, may be passed, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.