Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has stated that he had joined in service as a Junior Assistant in the month of May, 1959. Later, he was promoted as an Assistant and then as a Sub Treasury Officer Grade II, on 212. 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted from Grade II to Grade I, on 6. 1989 and his pay was fixed at Rs.2,000/-, by an order, dated 27. 1989. The pay scale of the Sub Treasury Officer Grade I was originally Rs.1640-2900, and with effect from 10. 1989 the pay scale was changed to Rs.1820-3200/-. When the petitioner was promoted from Sub Treasury Officer Grade I to Assistant Treasury Officer, his pay was fixed at Rs.2240/-, with effect from 7. 1991. .2. The petitioner has further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.580, dated 8. 1992, by which the post of Sub Treasury Officer Grade I was upgraded as Assistant Treasury Officer, with retrospective effect from 6. 1988. According to the said Government order, as classified by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 29. 1992, the upgradation was ordered, retrospectively, with effect from 6. 1988, on a notional basis with monetary benefits from 4. 1992. Later it was clarified that the panel prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer in the year, 1992, shall stand exhausted. The petitioner was not aware of the said order and in any event the Government Order, dated 8. 1992, could not have affected him, since he had been promoted on 7. 1991 itself. All of a sudden, by an order, dated 210. 1993, the second respondent had cancelled the earlier fixation of pay made on 9. 1991, to the petitioner on his promotion as Assistant Treasury Officer and re-fixed his pay at Rs.2240/-, with effect from 4. 1993. In fact, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs.2375/- whereas, by virtue of the order of cancellation, his pay was reduced to Rs.2240/- per month i.e., resulting in a monthly loss of Rs.135/- in the basic pay alone. Therefore, the petitioner had made a detailed representation, on 11. 1993, pointing out the facts and requested the respondents to allow him to continue to draw the earlier pay of Rs.2375/-, as on 7. 1993. Since there was no response, the petitioner had submitted a further representations to the first respondent, on 2. 1994 and 310. 1994. 3. Therefore, the petitioner had made a detailed representation, on 11. 1993, pointing out the facts and requested the respondents to allow him to continue to draw the earlier pay of Rs.2375/-, as on 7. 1993. Since there was no response, the petitioner had submitted a further representations to the first respondent, on 2. 1994 and 310. 1994. 3. The petitioner has further stated that the second respondent, without having any authority to do so, froze the applicants pay and did not allow him to draw the annual increments from 7. 1993 to 7. 1994. Since no order was passed by the first respondent on the petitioners representations, he had sent a telegram, on 5. 1995, requesting for immediate action. However, there has been no reply or action taken by the first respondent. In the meantime, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 19. 1995, had sanctioned two increments that were withheld and fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs.2300/-, as on 4. 1994 and at Rs.2375/-as on 4. 1995. Since the petitioner had already been drawing Rs.2375/-as the basic pay, with effect from 7. 1993, due to the granting of two increments, his pay as on 5. 1995 should have been Rs.2525/-. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation, dated 29. 1995, requesting the respondents to fix his pay correctly. By an order, dated 20.10.1995, the second respondent had communicated the order, dated 18. 1995, passed by the first respondent on the representation made by the petitioner for fixation of pay. The second respondent did not enclose the copy of the order, dated 18. 1995. However, from a reading of the second respondents order, dated 20.10.1995, the petitioner had found that the first respondent had, mechanically, rejected his representation and approved the cancellation of pay fixation done by the second respondent, on 210. 1993. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.4575 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.27756 of 2006. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. .5. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the scale of pay fixed earlier has been re-fixed without giving him an opportunity to putforth his case. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent relating to his proceedings Roc.7231/93(a1), dated 210. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. .5. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the scale of pay fixed earlier has been re-fixed without giving him an opportunity to putforth his case. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent relating to his proceedings Roc.7231/93(a1), dated 210. 1993, and the appellate order passed by the first respondent and communicated, vide proceedings Roc.A1/22740/95, dated 20.10.1995, are to be set aside. 6. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to show that the claims made by the petitioner are without merit and unsustainable in the eye of law. No records have been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner was given an opportunity before his pay was re-fixed by the respondents. In such circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside, as being contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. However, it is open to the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner, after giving notice to the petitioner and by giving him sufficient opportunity to participate in the enquiry that may be conducted by the respondents in this regard. Since the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of his superannuation, the petitioner would be permitted to draw the pensionary benefits based on the scale of pay as re-fixed by the respondents after completing the process of enquiry. If the respondents opt to initiate the enquiry, they are expected to complete the process, expeditiously, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.