Judgment :- The petitioners have stated that having been appointed as Night Watchmen, on different dates, in the various panchayat union schools, they were awarded the basic pay taking into account the respective dates of their appointments. Pursuant to the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 2. 1987, the persons who had completed 5 years of service were directed to be brought into the regular establishment. Accordingly, the petitioners were regularized in the posts in which they were working with consequent benefits in pay fixation. Subsequently, in the year 1994, G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 2. 1994, came to be passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was decided that the contingent staff who had been appointed prior to 6. 1981 and who had completed 10 years of continuous service from the date of their appointments should be brought into regular service. While so, the respondent had passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to reimburse the amounts received by them. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed an original application in O.A.No.7214 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.27300 of 2006. 2. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no notice had been given to the petitioners by the respondent before passing the impugned order, dated 38. 1995, and that the petitioners have not been given an opportunity to put forth their cases. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that even if the excess payment had been made, wrongly, by the respondent or his subordinates, it cannot be said that such pay fixation or payment was done based on deliberate misrepresentation made by the petitioners or due to any fraud committed by them. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had submitted that the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an order, dated 29. 2007, in W.P.No.(MD) No.8164 of 2006, filed by some of the petitioners in the present writ petition challenging an order, dated 5. 2006, issued by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvarankulam, Pudukottai District, ordering the recovery of certain amounts paid to the petitioners therein, alleging that excess payments had been made to them. In the said order, dated 29. 2007, the impugned order, dated 5. 2006, issued by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvarankulam, Pudukottai District, ordering the recovery of certain amounts paid to the petitioners therein, alleging that excess payments had been made to them. In the said order, dated 29. 2007, the impugned order, dated 5. 2006, had been quashed, since no opportunity had been given to the petitioners therein. This Court had held that the petitioners were not liable to refund any amount pursuant to the impugned order as the excess payment alleged to have been made was not due to their fault. However, it was observed in the said order that the quashing of the said impugned order would not prevent the respondents from giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner before deciding the matter afresh, in the manner known to law. Therefore, he prays that a similar order may be passed in the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had no objection for this Court passing such an order. 7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 38. 1995, made in NK No.6210/94-A.5, is set aside, since no prior notice had been given to the petitioners and no opportunity was given to them to put forth their cases before the impugned order was passed directing the petitioners to refund the amount paid to them as excess amount. However, it is made clear that this order would not prevent the respondent or his subordinate officers from taking necessary action in this regard, in accordance with law, after issuing the necessary notices to the petitioners and by giving sufficient opportunity to put forth their defence, if any. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.