Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows: The petitioner had entered into service, as a Higher Grade Teacher, in the respondent Department. Later, he had been promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Headmaster of the Primary School. As such, he had been serving at various places. His services were regularised after he had completed the period of probation. The petitioner had attained Selection Grade, as well as Special Grade. He had retired from service, on 30.6.2000, on attaining the age of superannuation. Later, he was re-appointed, as a Secondary Grade Teacher, in Adi Dravidar Welfare High School, Asoor, till the end of the academic year. 3. The petitioner has stated that his salary, in the cadre of selection and Special Grade Headmaster, had not been properly fixed. Therefore, he had made a request to re-fix the salary, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education, dated 10. 1996. Following the representation, made by the petitioner, his salary had been re-fixed, by an order of the respondent, in Na.Ka.No.12381/97/J4, dated 13. 1997, and he was paid the arrears of salary. While so, an internal audit had been conducted and it was alleged that an excess amount of Rs.1,72,815/-had been paid to the petitioner. Based on the audit report, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. After a lapse of four years, the respondent had issued the impugned order of recovery, in Pro.Na.Ka.No.34598/2000/J4, dated 30.6.2000. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the original application, in O.A.No.6699 of 2000, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 19. 2000, had granted an order of interim stay of the recovery. However, after the petitioner had retired from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, the pensionary benefits have not been given to the petitioner, even though he had been allowed to retire from service, on 30.6.2000. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a copy of the audit report had not been given to the petitioner. Further, no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of recovery, dated 30.6.2000, had been issued by the first respondent. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a copy of the audit report had not been given to the petitioner. Further, no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of recovery, dated 30.6.2000, had been issued by the first respondent. The impugned order, dated 30.6.2000, had been issued by the first respondent, after a lapse of four years. Since there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner and the payment of the alleged excess amount was not due to any fraud committed by the petitioner, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 30.6.2000, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 6. No reply or counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the averments made and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 30.6.2000, is set aside, in so far as it relates to the recovery of the excess amounts said to have been paid to the petitioner, as there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, due to which such excess payments had been made. However, the re-fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner and the payment of the pensionary benefits, based on the revised pay scales, shall be done only after the issuance of a notice to the petitioner and after giving him sufficient opportunity to put forth his case. Thereafter, the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner shall be paid in accordance with the re-fixed pay scales of the petitioner. The said process of re-fixation of the pay scale, as well as the payment of pensionary benefiww due to the petitioner, shall be completed by the respondents, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.