JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral):-Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was granted one additional increment by way of proficiency step up. This was conveyed to the petitioner on 5.4.1997 ((Annexure P-2). His pay was revised in sequel to Annexure P-2 on 25.4.1998. However, pursuant to office order dated 14.7.2000, the proficiency step up allowed to the petitioner was withdrawn. He made representation to the Registrar of the University on 24.7.2000. The same was rejected by the Registrar on 7.8.2000. In sequel to Annexure P-4, the consequential orders were issued on 18.9.2000 and 1.12.2000 respectively. The recovery amounting to Rs. 15,799/- was also to be effected from the salary of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been issued any notice before the issuance of Annexure P-4 dated 14.7.2000. He then contended that the petitioner has been visited with civil and evil consequences after the issuance of Annexures P-4, P-8 and P-9. He lastly contended that the recoveries could not be effected from the petitioner once a conscious decision has been taken on the basis of Annexure P-2. 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was not entitled to proficiency step up on the basis of the clarifications received from the Deputy Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 6.4.1990 and 3.12.1999. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. A conscious decision has been taken to grant one additional increment to the petitioner and similarly situate persons on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. His pay was fixed on 25.4.1998. The respondent-university has issued office order dated 14.7.2000 without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been heard by the respondent-university before withdrawing Annexure P-2. He has been visited with civil and evil consequences. His pay stood reduced after the issuance of order dated 14.7.2000. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected on 7.8.2000. The university was aware of the letter dated 6.4.1990 when one additional increment by way of proficiency step up has been granted to the petitioner after rendering eight years of service. The petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the authorities at the time of issuance of Annexure P-2. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected on 7.8.2000. The university was aware of the letter dated 6.4.1990 when one additional increment by way of proficiency step up has been granted to the petitioner after rendering eight years of service. The petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented the authorities at the time of issuance of Annexure P-2. He has not played any fraud upon the respondent-university at the time of release of one additional increment by way of proficiency step up. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer: “55. That apart, it also appears from the record produced before us that while the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar was in favour of making the amended provisions of FR. That apart, it also appears from the record produced before us that while the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar was in favour of making the amended provisions of FR. 22-C applicable to the appellants-teachers after having come to know that the said rule did not exist and had been substituted, the Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Bihar, wanted to apply the unamended provision to the appellants-teachers so as to make available the benefit of additional increment provided for under FR.22-C to its teachers, unaware of the fact that even under FR.22-C they were not entitled to the additional increment as they were not discharging duties and responsibilities of greater importance on the promoted post. 56. This further goes on to show that the authorities in the State of Bihar were not even aware of the basic requirement for grant of additional increment and the decision appears to have been taken without proper application of mind. Otherwise, there was no reason for the Finance Department to state in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that any affidavit filed on behalf of the Education Department may be ignored as Finance Department was the competent authority. In this very affidavit, the Finance Department while admitting that the pay fixation by the Education Department was wrong, stated as under:- "...the fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22-C has wrongly been made as it was not in existence. Pay fixation on the basis of a non-existent rule is a bona fide mistake." 57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCC 521; Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, [1996] 4 SCC 416; V. Ganga Ram vs. Regional Jt., Director, [1997] 6 SCC 139; Col. B.J. Akkara [Retd.] vs. Government of India & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 709; Purshottam Lal Das & Ors.,vs. State of Bihar, [2006] 11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr., [2006] 8 SCC 647; and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Bijay Bahadur & Anr., [2000] 10 SCC 99. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made. 60. Learned counsel also submitted that prior to the interim order passed by this Court on 7.4.2003 in the special leave petitions, whereby the order of recovery passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was stayed, some installments/amount had already been recovered from some of the teachers. Since we have directed that no recovery of the excess amount be made from the appellant- teachers and in order to maintain parity, it would be in the fitness of things that the amount that has been recovered from the teachers should be refunded to them.” 8. The Court is of the firm opinion that there is violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondent-university. The petitioner was required to be heard before the issuance of impugned orders Annexures P-4 dated 14.7.2000, P-8 dated 18.9.2000 and P-9 dated 1.12.2000. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures P-4 dated 14.7.2000, P-8 dated 18.9.2000 and P-9 dated 1.12.2000 are quashed and set aside. However, it is open to the respondent-university to proceed with the matter after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.