ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The subject-matter of challenge in this appeal is an order passed by the High Court rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged an order passed by the Superintending Engineer of the respondent Board directing refixation of his pay and recovery of excess payments at the rate of Rs 4000 p.m. from the appellants salary. 3. The appellant was initially appointed as a labourer with the Municipal Corporation of Amritsar on 1-4-1972. In 1976, he was promoted as a Lineman on account of a resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation on 8-6-1993 by which the employees of the Electricity Department of the Municipal Council who had been initially appointed as Mazdoor or T/Mate were to be promoted as Assistant Lineman or promoted directly as Lineman. The appellant claims to have been directly appointed as Lineman on 21-10-1976. 4. In 1995, the Electricity Department of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was transferred to the Punjab State Electricity Board. The appellant was given the pay scale as a Lineman by the respondent Board. In 1998, there was an order of deduction of amounts allegedly paid in excess to the appellant. According to the respondent, the basis of the deduction was that the appellant was not entitled to be promoted as Lineman directly from the post of Mazdoor or T/Mate. The appellant filed a suit. The suit was decreed in the appellants favour holding that the appellant was entitled to the scale of pay applicable to a Lineman. The respondent Board preferred an appeal. The first appellate court upheld the finding of the trial court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the respondent Board while ordering the deduction. While dismissing the appeal, the Additional District Judge gave liberty to the respondents to initiate the matter afresh within a period of six months in accordance with law. 5. On 11-2-2004, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Superintending Engineer asking the appellant to show cause why the excess amount paid to him as a Lineman be not deducted. The appellant showed cause. However, by an order dated 29-3-2004, the Superintending Engineer, passed the order which was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition as stated earlier. The appellant showed cause. However, by an order dated 29-3-2004, the Superintending Engineer, passed the order which was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition as stated earlier. The order which is dated 29-3-2004 states that although there was no dispute "about recognising the appellant as Lineman, the issue is whether he was directly appointed as Lineman or otherwise by way of promotion". It was found that the appellant could not place any evidence in support of the claim that he was appointed as direct recruit to the post of Lineman. 6. The High Court in dismissing the writ petition held that there was, in fact, a mistake and since the appellant had been given an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 29-3-2004. 7. It is apparent that there was no dispute that the appellant was a Lineman at all material times. It is also not the respondents case that a person who is a Lineman is not entitled to the scale of pay which the appellant has been drawing. If the appellant had been wrongly appointed as a Lineman, it was for the respondents to revert him back to whichever post they felt he should occupy. As long as the appellant continued as a Lineman, the respondents could not deny the appellant the scale applicable to that post. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 29-3-2004 is quashed and the decision of the High Court is set aside with no order as to costs.