Judgment :- 1. By consent of both sides, writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3018/99 Aa 5, dated 23. 2000 and quash the same. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service on 6. 1979 and he has been serving as a Craft Teacher. When he joined in the service, the qualification for appointment as Craft Teacher in Private Middle Schools was a pass in 8th standard and necessary technical qualification. At the relevant point of time, the Craft Teachers in Middle School were getting ordinary scale of pay, but at the same time, the Craft Teachers working in High Schools were given secondary grade scale of pay. The Government by G.O.Ms.No. 1366, dated 9. 1986 ordered that the Secondary Grade Scale of Pay would be applicable to the Craft Teachers working in Middle Schools also. While making the Secondary Grade Scale of Pay applicable to Craft Teachers working in Middle Schools, G.O.Ms.No. 1366, dated 9. 1986 raised the minimum education qualification to Craft Teachers from VIII Standard to that of a pass in S.S.L.C. The said Government Order prescribed three years time limit to the Craft Teachers working in Middle Schools to qualify themselves in S.S.L.C. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C., on 30.4.1988 well within the time prescribed by the Government Order. The District Elementary Education Officer on 110. 1990 conferred Selection Grade to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 6. 1990 taking into consideration his total service of ten years from 6. 1979. The said order of the District Elementary Education Officer was passed after taking into account the Government Orders. The fourth respondent in his proceedings dated 23. 2000 ordered recovery of Rs.12,920-toward excess amount paid to the petitioner. He also furnished copy of the Audit Report for the year 19951996. In the Audit Report, it is stated that the Selection Grade was given to the petitioner wrongly by taking into consideration the period of service without S.S.L.C. The petitioner submits that the objection raised in the Audit Report is without any valid basis. The petitioner further submitted that every person who had served 10 years is entitled to Selection Grade. In the Audit Report, it is stated that the Selection Grade was given to the petitioner wrongly by taking into consideration the period of service without S.S.L.C. The petitioner submits that the objection raised in the Audit Report is without any valid basis. The petitioner further submitted that every person who had served 10 years is entitled to Selection Grade. The view taken in Audit Report that the period of service after passing S.S.L.C alone could be taken into consideration for conferring Selection Grade has no legal basis. The petitioner submits that order of recovering excess amount was passed by the fourth respondent without giving any opportunity to him. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as Pre-vocational Instructor with effect from 6. 1979 in the aided Middle School, Keezhaiyur. The petitioner passed the SSLC examination through SCERT on 30.4.2008 and he was given the Secondary Grade Scale of Pay with effect from 30.4.1988 and his pay was fixed at Rs.610/- w.e.f. 30.4.1988. The District Educational Officer, Mayiladuthurai taken into account his services rendered by him from the date of passing the TTC i.e. from 6. 1980. The third respondent in his counter affidavit further stated that the Accountant General, Chennai in his audit report during the year January, 1996 raised an objection that the District Educational Officer, Mayiladuthurai awarded Selection Grade to the petitioner from 6. 1990 taking into account of the services rendered in the post of higher grade PVI was incorrect as the incumbent passed the SSLC examination on 30.4.1988 only. Based on this objection raised by the Audit Report, it was ordered that the recovery of excess drawal of pay and allowance from 6. 1990 should be remitted in the Government account. Hence, the recovery order passed by the fourth respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the Government Orders. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without any misrepresentation or furnishing wrong details by the petitioners, the petitioner’s salary was fixed and paid and now the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without any misrepresentation or furnishing wrong details by the petitioners, the petitioner’s salary was fixed and paid and now the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the issue as to whether any recovery could be made from the salary already paid to an employee without any misrepresentation or suppression of fact on the part of the employee was considered and it is held that no recovery could be made from the salary already paid. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 fairly submits that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact and the respondents on their own fixed the pay, which was subsequently found wrong based on the Audit Report and hence the impugned order of recovery is passed. 7. In the light of the above submissions and following the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC (supp) 18 (Sahib Ram C. State of Haryana) and (2007) 6 SCC 180 (Babulal Jain V. State of Madhya Pradesh) and the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (3) LLN 461 (D. Palavesamuthu v. Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal) and (2006) 3 MLJ 1025 (P. Arumugam v. Registrar, Tamil University) and the decision of mine reported in (2006) 1 MLJ 695 (S.A. Kanthimathi v. Director of School Education, Madras), I hold that the impugned order of recovery cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of recovery dated 23. 2000 passed by the fourth respondent is set aside. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.