JUDGMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice-Chairman.—The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order issued by respondents dated 27.3.2003 {Annexure A-l), whereby they were going to make recovery of the alleged excess payment of pay and allowances paid to him after being promoted as Head Teacher and the pay fixed under FR-22(l)(a)(i). Thus, the applicant is praying mainly for following relief:— (a) Quash the impugned order (A-l) of the respondents, whereby they have directed to recover the payment of increment under FR-22(l) (a) (i) and to stop future increments being arbitrary, mala fide and illegal; (b) Direct the respondents to restore the increments of the applicant in accordance with FR 22(l) (a) (i) as fixed earlier with all the consequential benefits and interest @ 18% per annum till the payment of arrears thereof. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as JBT on 15.9.1966. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Teacher on 28.2.1997 and he joined as Head Teacher on 4.3.1997 in GPS Damiana and accordingly, his pay was re-fixed after giving him the benefit of FR-22(l)(a)(i) in the old pay scale. It is further submitted that after the revised pay scale came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1996, the pay of the applicant was again fixed in accordance with FR-22(l)(a)(l). The applicant was promoted as CHT w.e.f. 17.8.2000. 3. The respondents-department has issued the impugned order dated 27.3.2003, whereby it has been ordered that the recovery of excess payment will be made from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 53,543/-. Therefore, the respondents-department has also stopped all the increments granted to the applicant under FR-22(l)(a)(i) arbitrarily and illegally and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant or issuing any show-cause notice before resorting the impugned, illegal and arbitrary action. 4. The applicant, has thus, mentioned the action of respondents in restoring to making the recovery of the alleged excess payment as illegal and arbitrary. It is averred that the pay of the applicant has rightly been fixed as the applicant was promoted from the post of JBT to the post of Head Master with responsibilities and duties of greater importance. As such, for fixation of applicants pay, the provisions as envisaged under FR-22(l) (a)(i) are attracted. 5. In the reply filed by respondents-department, it has been averred that the revision of new pay scale which has been revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the scale of Rs. As such, for fixation of applicants pay, the provisions as envisaged under FR-22(l) (a)(i) are attracted. 5. In the reply filed by respondents-department, it has been averred that the revision of new pay scale which has been revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the scale of Rs. 4550-7200 has been granted to JBT teachers and the post of Head Teacher category has not been mentioned in this pay revision, which is very much clear from the notification dated, 1.9.1998 (Annexure R-l). According to the Clause-2 of the notification dated 1.9.1998 (Revised Pay Rules, 1998), it has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Therefore, on promotion of the applicant as H.T., he is not at all entitled to the benefit of FR-22(a) and 22(c). Hence, vide Annexure A-l, the recovery has already been ordered to be deposited. 6. The arguments have been heard and the pleadings have been perused. It is admitted fact that while ordering to affect the recovery of the alleged excess payment, the respondents-department has issued no prior show-cause notice. As such, there has been flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. It is also not in dispute that the said benefit was granted to the applicant in pursuance of the rules and not on account of any representation to that effect by the applicant. 7. So far as the question of non-observation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it leaves no doubt to my mind, that the same has been violated. Salary, pension, gratuity etc., are the property of an individual under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The said Article provides that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by of authority of law". Therefore, it was not only essential but also mandatory on the part of the respondents to issue show-cause notice to the applicant before having restored to their impugned action. The Honble Apex Court in AIR 1994 SC 2480, "Bhagwan Shukla. v, Union of India and another/ has held that:— "3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. That the petitioners basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Ra. 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.ei. 18.12.1970. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. That the petitioners basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Ra. 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.ei. 18.12.1970. The appellant has 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 concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 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. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs. 190/- to Rs. 181/- w.e.f. 18.12.1970." 8. In fact, similar observations have been made by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case titled as "Mahavir Singh v. Union of India", reported in 1997 (2) Shimla Law Cases Page 385. 9. Similarly, the Honble Apex Court has restrained the departments from effecting recoveries in cases reported in 1995 (2) SCT 421, titled as "State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty", 1994 (2) SC 521 "Shyam Babu v. Union of India and another’s" and 1995 Suppl. 1 SCC Cases Page 18, titled as "Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana". 10. Admittedly, there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant in getting the excess payment. 1 SCC Cases Page 18, titled as "Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana". 10. Admittedly, there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant in getting the excess payment. It will not only be unfair, but also unjust if what has been paid to the applicant about two decades ago is taken back from him at the time of his retirement. The impugned order visits upon the applicant civil consequences and will leave to undue financial hardship and as such, can not be sustained in the eyes of law, 11. So far as the continuance of the benefit under FR-22(l) (a) (i) is concerned, the applicant is entitled for the same. The bare perusal of the provisions contained in the said rules, makes it amply clear that the initial pay of the Government servant, who is appointed to a post of a time scale of pay, is regulated in the manner that where a Government servant holding a post, other than of 10 years post in substantiate or temporary or officiating capacity, is promoted or appointed in the substantiate or temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfillment of eligibility condition as prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance, then those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post, shall be fixed at this stage interest above the notional arrived at by increasing the pay In respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at this stage at which such pay has accrued or Rs. 100/- only whichever is earlier. . 12. The catch words in the above provisions are "to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of a greater importance than those attach to the post held by him". Undoubtedly, the applicant was promoted from the post of JBT to that of Head Master, which is higher post and carried the duties and responsibilities of a greater importance. This is why the applicant was earlier granted the benefit under the above provisions of FR. As such, merely because no scale has been granted after the revision of pay scale, the duties of the applicant has not become of a lesser importance. This is why the applicant was earlier granted the benefit under the above provisions of FR. As such, merely because no scale has been granted after the revision of pay scale, the duties of the applicant has not become of a lesser importance. In this regard, the Honble Apex Court in its decision, reported in 1998 (1) SCT 52, titled "State of Punjab v. Lal Singh", has held that the post of Head Teacher carrying responsibility of greater importance and as such, they were entitled for one advance increment in time scale. 13. In the light of the above discussion, the present original application is allowed and the impugned order Annexure A-l is quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to restore the increments of the applicant in accordance with FR-22(l) (a) (i) as fixed earlier with all consequential benefits from the due date. The respondents are further directed to give interest to the applicant @ 6% per annum from the due date till the payment thereof. The respondents are further directed to comply with this order within 2 months. With these observations, this original application is finally disposed of. O.A. Finally disposed of.