Judgment The petitioners, who are colleagues working in the same cadre as Road Inspectors in the Highways Department have filed this writ petition challenging the common order of recovery passed by the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.27/2004-B6, dated 212. 2004, as per the direction of the 1st respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the implementation of the VI Pay Commission by the Government with effect from 01.01.1996, the pay was revised to all the employees of the State Government. Subsequently, an One Man Commission was appointed to rectify the pay anomalies and consequent to the recommendations of the One Man Commission, certain revisions were carried out in the pay in respect of certain categories. The Finance Department also issued orders to obtain revised option to come over the revised scales of pay and accordingly, the petitioners were given 2nd option for revision of pay. 2a. n the proceedings dated 05.02.1999, the Finance Department of Government of Tamil Nadu has categorically stated that he question of recovery of excess pay drawn during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.1998 based upon the revised option exercised by the teachers/employees does not arise since the revised orders have been given monetary benefit from 01.09.1998 only and therefore, the question of recovery does not arise in the case of the petitioners. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioners that after a lapse of five years from the revised option, the respondents have issued the impugned order stating that the pay granted from 01.01.1996 to 312. 1996 was objected by the Audit parties and accordingly the recovery was imposed. 2b. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of recovery on the grounds that it has been issued to them without any show cause notice and an opportunity to defend their case and that the question of recovery of arrears paid with effect from 01.01.1996 does not arise as per the orders of the Finance Department dated 05.02.1999, as the Audit Parties have not gone into the Government Orders before raising objections. 3. 3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, counter affidavit has been filed and it is stated therein that the petitioners, who were working as Grade -I Road Inspectors were drawing pay at Rs.1440+68 pp in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 and subsequently, they have been elevated to selection grade in the post of Road Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.01.1997 in Divisional Engineers (H) Tiruchirappalli Proc.No.64/97-I/B6/ dated 20.02.1997 and their pay was fixed at 1500+68 pp with effect from 01.01.1997 in the pre-revised scale of pay Rs.1400-50-2300-69-2600. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu has ordered revised pay scales in G.O.Ms.162 Finance (pc) Department dated 13.04.1998 with effect from 01.01.1996. As such, the pay of the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.4600/- in the scale of pay 4000-100-6000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and they have been allowed to draw their arrears of pay and allowances with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards. 3a. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that while the petitioners submitted their original option during May 1998, they have already been elevated to selection grade in Grade-I Road Inspector post with effect from 01.01.1997 and they might be fully aware of the benefit of fixing their pay as on 01.01.1996 in the revised scale of pay pertaining to Road Inspector Grade I selection grade, but, they have simply submitted their option to fix their pay in the revised scale with effect from 01.01.1996. 3b. A clarification has been issued by the Government in Letter No.87268 PC 98-1, dated 05.02.1999 that certain teachers have not been permitted to exercise option consequent on the revision of scales of pay based on the recommendation of the One Man Committee stating that those who were awarded selection grade/special grade after 01.01.1996 are not eligible to exercise option. The 2nd respondent has further stated that as per the clarification issued in Lr.No.62264/PC Finance Department, dated 28.08.1998, employees are entitled to revised option consequent on the revision of scales of pay (i) issue of clarification by Government (ii) Regularisation of services with retrospective effect. Further, as per the clarification issued in Government Letter No.30027 PC 98-1 Finance Department, dated 28.04.1998, the employees can opt to remain in the existing scale upto any period of their choice after 01.01.1996. 3c. Further, as per the clarification issued in Government Letter No.30027 PC 98-1 Finance Department, dated 28.04.1998, the employees can opt to remain in the existing scale upto any period of their choice after 01.01.1996. 3c. It is also submitted that as such the employees whose scales of pay are revised with retrospective effect are entitled to exercise revised option irrespective of the fact whether such employees were awarded selection grade/special grade period till 01.01.1996. Further, it has been clarified that the revision of scales of pay of the employees ordered based on the recommendation of the official committee/one man committee have been given notional effect from 01.01.1996 and with monetary effect from 01.09.1998. As such, the question of recovery of excess pay drawn during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.1998 based on the revised option exercised by the employees does not arise since the revised order has been given monetary benefit from 01.09.1998 only. 3d. Based on the above said clarification, the petitioners and other Road Inspectors have submitted their revised option to have their pay fixed as on 01.01.1997 i.e. after they have been elevated to selection grade in Grade-I Road Inspector Post. As per revised options, pay has been fixed at Rs.5,150/- in the scale of pay Rs.5000-150-8000 to the following Road Inspectors : (1) V. Santhanam (2) R. Surendran (3) P. Rajalingam (4) A. Elangovan (5) H. Sheik Beer (6) Padmanabhan 3e. The Accountant General has conducted audit for the year 2003-04, in which he has objected to the fixation of pay based on the revised option submitted by V.Santhanam and R.Surendran, Road Inspectors in paragraph 3 part IIB Communicated in Accountant General (Audit)-I RA (H) III 2-55/2003-04/146 dated 211. 2003 and Chief Engineer (H) Chennai-28 Memo No. Accounts III Trichy-30/2003, dated 112. 2003. The 2nd respondent has further stated that the Accountant General has raised audit objection that since the officials opted to new scale with effect from 01.01.1997, they were entitled to revised scale of pay (as per Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay from 01.01.1997); therefore, the pay commission arrears paid to the petitioners from 01.01.1996 to 312. 1996, amounting to Rs.6330/- and Rs.6756/- based on the first option has to be recovered from them and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. 1996, amounting to Rs.6330/- and Rs.6756/- based on the first option has to be recovered from them and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. 5. It is seen that the petitioners were employed as Road Inspectors in the Highways Department and their revised pay has been fixed with effect from 01.01.1996, based on the VI Pay Commission. Accordingly, the revised pay was granted to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.1996 and subsequently, an One Man Commission was appointed to rectify the pay anomalies and consequent to the recommendations of the One Man Commission, certain revisions were carried out in the pay in respect of certain categories. The Finance Department also issued orders to obtain revised option to come over the revised scales of pay and accordingly, they were given second option for revision of pay. It is further seen that as per the proceedings dated 05.02.1999, the Finance Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu has clarified that the question of recovery of excess pay drawn during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.1998 based upon the revised option exercised by the teachers/employees does not arise since the revised orders have been given monetary benefit from 01.09.1998 only. 6. It is further seen that the impugned order dated 212. 2004 has been issued by the 2nd respondent on the Accountant Generals Inspection conducted from 210. 2003 to 011. 2003 and the audit objection raised by them. It is seen from the impugned order that the Service Register of Santhanam and others would show that they were moved to Selection Grade with effect from 01.01.1997. Their pay was fixed at Rs.4600/-with effect from 01.01.1996 in the revised scale of pay Rs.4000-100-6000/-. As per the Government Letter No.30027/PC/98-1/Finance dated 28.04.1998, the employees may remain in the existing scale up to any period after 01.01.1996. Therefore, they exercised revised option with effect from 01.01.1997 on moving to Selection Grade for re-fixation in Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay and consequential benefits which supersedes their earlier option. 7. The Government, in Letter No.87268/PC/98-1 dated 05.02.1999 accepted the recommendation of the official committee and One Man Commission and ordered that the officials were allowed to have the monetary benefits as per the revised option from that date. 7. The Government, in Letter No.87268/PC/98-1 dated 05.02.1999 accepted the recommendation of the official committee and One Man Commission and ordered that the officials were allowed to have the monetary benefits as per the revised option from that date. Since, the officials opted to new scales of pay with effect from 01.01.1997, they were entitled to revised scale of pay as per Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay only from 01.01.1997. Therefore, the Pay Commission arrears paid to the Road Inspectors from 01.01.1996 to 312. 1996 based on the first option should be recovered from them and the fact intimated to Audit. As per the impugned order, excess pay paid to the Road Inspectors, namely, P.Rajalingam, A. Elangovan, H.Sheik Peer and M.Padmanabhan were ordered to be recovered. 8. In view of the Audit Objection, the recovery sought to be made can be done only after following the procedures contemplated under the rules and after getting the consent of the petitioners. It is a settled legal position that before proceeding with any order of recovery, the aggrieved person should be sent a show cause notice and must be given an opportunity of hearing. In the case on hand, no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner before proceeding with the enquiry. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein, paragraph 5 would read under: "Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances, the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs." 10. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs." 10. As per the letter dated 05.02.1999 issued by the Finance Department, the petitioners are entitled for promotion and a clarification has also been made in that regard. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been specifically averred that the question of recovery of excess pay drawn during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.1998 based on the revised option exercised by the employees does not arise since the revised order has been given monetary benefit from 01.09.1998 only. 11. In such view of the matter, it is clear that recovery of any amount from the petitioners has to be made only in accordance with law and recovery order has to be issued only after issuing notice to the petitioners and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them. Since, in the case on hand, the petitioners were not issued any showcause notice and not given an opportunity of personal hearing, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. On this ground also, the impugned order dated 212. 2004 passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed. 12. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court, the impugned order suffers from infirmity and it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the recovery proceedings passed by the second respondent dated 212. 2004 stands quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.3240 of 2005 is closed.