Judgment :- It is submitted by the petitioner that he has been working as Health Supervisor at the Primary Health Centre, Kogiluthu, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. He was initially appointed as a Vaccinator under the National Small Pox Eradication Program, on 111. 1963. The post of Vaccinator was re-designated as Multi Purpose Health Assistant in the year 1988 and the petitioner was posted as Multi Purpose Health Assistant by an order of the District Health Officer, Tirunelveli in R.No.16453/A8/88, dated 211. 1988. The petitioner was also awarded Special Grade in the said post. He was promoted as Health Supervisor on 21. 1989. At the time of promotion as Health Supervisor, the petitioner was a Special Grade Multi Purpose Health Assistant. The Pre-Revised Ordinary Grade Scale of Health Supervisor was Rs.610-1075 and the Pre-Revised Special Grade Scale of Multi Purpose Health Assistant was Rs.905-1545. Since the Ordinary Grade Scale of the Promotion Post was lesser than the Special Grade Scale of the lower post, which the petitioner was holding, his pay was fixed in the Selection Grade Scale of Health Supervisor, namely, Rs.905-1545, by orders of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Tirunelveli in R.No.9666/A3/94/1, dated 212. 1994. The said order was issued in pursuance of the orders issued in the Government Letter No.26846/PC/94-J Finance (PC) Department, dated 20.6.1994. The Revised Scale of Pay for the Pre-Revised Scale of Rs.905-1545 in Rs.1600-2660. Accordingly, the applicants pay was fixed in the Revised Scale of Rs.1600-2660, with effect from 21. 1989, by an order of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Tirunelveli, in R.No.9666/A3/94-2, dated 212. 1994. The petitioner was paid the arrears of pay. He has been drawing pay in the Scale of Rs.1600-2660, with effect from 289. While so, the second respondent has now issued an order in R.No.9666/A3/94, dated 22. 1996, (the impugned order) cancelling the above said pay fixation and refixing the pay in the lower scale of Rs.1320-2040 and directed the Medical Officers concerned to recover the excess payment of Pay Fixation Arrears and remit the same into the Treasury. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 22. 1996. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 3. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court an order, dated 211. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 22. 1996. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 3. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court an order, dated 211. 2006, made in W.P.No.27672 & 27673 of 2006, in which the said impugned order R.No.9666/A3/94, dated 23.02.96, had been quashed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not denied the claims made by the petitioner. 5. The order passed by this Court, on 211. 2006, is as follows:- "The petitioners have challenged an order dated 22. 1996, by which their pay in the post of Health Supervisor was revised with effect from 21. 1989 and 11. 1989 respectively and consequential recovery ordered of the excess payment already made. 2. It is seen from the impugned order dated 22. 1996 that the second respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is one by which the pay of the petitioners was sought to be downgraded and recovery effected. It is well settled that such an order cannot be passed without issuing a notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore on this short ground, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh disposal in accordance with law to be made after following the due process of law by giving a notice to the petitioners, receive an explanation from them and then pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with the above directions. No costs." 6. In view of the order passed by this Court, on 211. 2006, in W.P.Nos.27672 & 27673 of 2006, the impugned order of the second respondent, R.No.9666/A3/94, dated 22. 1996, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh disposal, passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by receiving an explanation from him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. 1996, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh disposal, passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by receiving an explanation from him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.