Judgment :- It is submitted by the petitioner that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant in the year, 1963. Thereafter, She was promoted as a Middle School Headmaster in the year, 1983. The petitioner has further stated that with effect from 6. 1988 the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission had been adhered to by the Government. In the year 1990, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education, dated 10. 1990, stating that those who were holding the post of Elementary School Headmaster, as on 6. 1988, were eligible to count their secondary grade service and their pay scale was to be fixed at Rs.2,000/-, as on 6. 1988. As per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989, the pay scale of the petitioner had been fixed as on 6. 1988 at Rs.2,240/-, by an order, dated 23. 1994. However, the first respondent, without issuing a notice to the petitioner, had passed the impugned order cancelling the fixation of the pay made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners pay was re-fixed at Rs.1,880/- and she was asked to repay the excess amounts paid to her. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application in O.A.No.4289 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.26660 of 2006. 2. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent without giving any notice to the petitioner to put forth her case. 4. It has also been submitted that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, based on which the pay scale of the petitioner had been re-fixed. In fact, the re-fixation of pay scale was done only in accordance with the relevant Rules and the Government orders applicable to her. 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 first 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 her to put forth her case. The impugned order had been passed without notice to the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to her to put forth her case. There was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner based on which the re-fixation of her pay scale was done. Further, the petitioner had retired from service on her attaining the age of superannuation. 6. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 17. 1996, is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.