Judgment :- The petitioner has submitted that he was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Mono Type Casting Attendant, through the employment exchange, and he had joined in service on 5. 1975. He was promoted to the post of Senior Mechanic in the year, 1978. The petitioner had completed 10 years of service in the post of Senior Mono Mechanic on 5. 1988. As such he was eligible to get selection grade scale of pay in the light of the various Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 6. 1985, G.O.Ms.No.841, dated 30.8.1995, and G.O.Ms.No.879, dated 9. 1986. Accordingly, the selection grade was sanctioned to him by an order, dated 1. 1989, with effect from 5. 1988. Thus, the petitioner was given the selection grade scale of pay upto 31. 1991. However, it was cancelled by the impugned orders of the respondents. 2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf the respondents, the claims made by petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed in the selection grade scale of pay of Senior Machanic. However, the pay scale of the petitioner in the selection grade has been wrongly re-fixed. Thereafter, the implementing authority had noticed that the pay was wrongly fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040 and hence, it was re-fixed in the appropriate scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and the recovery was ordered for excess pay and allowances already paid to the petitioner. The excess payment made to the petitioner was purely due to an administrative error and therefore, there is no violation of the rights vested in the petitioner. Further, as per the provisions contained in Articles 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, Volume-I, the excess pay and allowances could be recovered from the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 7. 1992, had been passed without any notice being issued to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to present his case. Further, the impugned order has been passed, arbitrarily, without stating the reasons for the passing of the said order. 4. It has also been submitted that the re-fixation of the pay scales of the petitioner has been done only by the respondents. Further, the impugned order has been passed, arbitrarily, without stating the reasons for the passing of the said order. 4. It has also been submitted that the re-fixation of the pay scales of the petitioner has been done only by the respondents. There was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner based on which the respondents had re-fixed the pay scales of the petitioner. In fact, the re-fixation of pay scales was done only in accordance with the relevant Rules and the Government orders applicable to the petitioner. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of recovery passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order had been passed without notice to the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to him to put forth his case. Further, there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner, based on which the re-fixation of his pay scale was done. 6. With regard to the prayer of the petitioner requesting this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to grant the selection grade scale of pay from 5. 1988 to 3. 1992, with all attendant benefits, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondents with regard to the said relief sought for in the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondents with regard to the said request of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such representation being submitted, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 7. 1992, is set aside and the writ petition stands partly allowed. No costs.