JUDGMENT 1. 1. On consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the reasons mentioned therein, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing these appeals is condoned and the matters are heard for admission. 2. Under challenge in all these appeals is the common judgment dated 09.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and where under twelve writ petitions preferred by the respondents have been allowed. The respondents/writ petitioners, in the writ petitions, had challenged the order dated 19.08.2003 whereby the appellants sought to make recoveries from them pursuant to suo motu refixation of their pay in the Revised Pay Scheme of 2000. The respondents further prayed that direction be issued to the appellant-Insurance Company to afresh invite options from them on the basis of circular dated 21.09.2001 so as to fix their salary in the Revised Pay Scheme of 2000.The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in respect of the very same circular in the case of the employees of the appellant-Insurance Company itself, allowed the writ petition quashing the orders dated 19.08.2003/21.08.2003 and the consequent recovery order dated 21.12.2005 and further directed the appellant-Insurance Company to refund the amount recovered from the respondents and give them fresh opportunity to exercise options in terms of the circular dated 21.09.2001 and thereafter fix their pay. 3. Mr. Pradeep Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued 1 that the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge, was delivered in the context of the fact that the circular dated 21.09.2001 was not circulated with the Chandigarh Divisional Office and it was on recommendation and concession made by the Regional Manager in his letter addressed to the Head Office that the aforesaid judgment was passed directing refund of the recovery and giving fresh opportunity to exercise option. 4. On being specifically asked whether the circular dated 21.09.2001 was properly circulated to the respondents herein, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this circular was duly notified on the notice board though he could not specifically assert that it was circulated to the employees individually. 4. On being specifically asked whether the circular dated 21.09.2001 was properly circulated to the respondents herein, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this circular was duly notified on the notice board though he could not specifically assert that it was circulated to the employees individually. The learned counsel for the appellants also could not show whether prior to passing of the order of recovery dated 19.08.2003/21.08.2003, any opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondents. Since the aforesaid orders had the adverse consequences for the respondents inasmuch as they had the affect of reducing their pay and also sought to make recovery it was very necessary for the appellants to provide opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners/respondents. Learned counsel however submitted that the orders were passed pursuant to the audit objection. Though such objection may be internal to the functioning of the appellant-Insurance Company. It does not however satisfy the requirements/compliance of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, when earlier pay fixation of the respondents was not made owing to any misrepresentation by them, even if the revised pay fixation were to be held valid, no recovery even otherwise could be made from the respondents. 5. The recommendation letter dated 16.03.2005 which is on record was written by the Regional Manager, Jaipur Division of the appellant-Insurance Company in the present case too. A bare perusal of the said letter reveals that the Regional Manager of Jaipur region in his letter had similarly recommended to the Head Office that such of the employees, who were promoted between 01.08.1997 and 22.06.2000, though were required to give option for fixation in their respective scales in the pre-promoted cadre. As a result, the employees who had already exercised their option for fitment on promotion prior to 22.06.2000 were allowed to re-exercise option for the date of fitment on promotion within a period of 90 days from the date of above referred to administrative instructions. Most of the employees could not understand the Implications of exercising their option for fitment at the time of promotion as per the administrative instructions. Many of the employees were not aware of the same as some of them were busy in the Insurance Institute Exam being held in the month of October; as a result, they could not re-exercise their option. Many of the employees were not aware of the same as some of them were busy in the Insurance Institute Exam being held in the month of October; as a result, they could not re-exercise their option. The tenor of the letter clearly reveals that there was no proper circulation to the employees of Jaipur Region as well. It was therefore, that the Regional Manager strongly recommended that all these employees should be allowed another opportunity for fixation of pay in accordance with the circular dated 21.09.2001 so as to avoid undue hardship and financial burden to them. 6. Apart from the aforesaid fact, we also do not find any distinction between the facts of the present case and those of the one, which was decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We also find that there was total non compliance of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was served upon the respondents prior to affecting the reduction of their pay scale and consequential recoveries. We have also been informed that the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not been appealed against and has since attained finality. 7. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******