Judgment The petitioners are Senior Grade Teachers in Valapadi Panchayat Union School, except the fifth petitioner, who is the Head Master. They were paid city compensatory allowance pursuant to the recommendation of the VIth Pay Commission from April 1998 to October, 2000. The Audit party objected that the Valapadi Panchayat Union, where the petitioners are employed does not come under prescribed radius for payment of city compensatory allowance. Hence, the payment made to them are irregular. Based on that, the first respondent passed an impugned order dated 011. 2000 to recover the city compensatory allowance from the petitioners . The amount paid to the petitioners is as follows: .................................................................................................. No. Name of Name of C.C.A C.C.A. received T otal the School the Teacher from 4/98 to 10/2000 amount .................................................................................................. 1. Annaimedu A.Ekambaram 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 2. Chinnama Naickam Pallayam R.Sekar 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 3. ,, S.Annamalai 180 31 x 180 = Rs.3100/- 4. ,, A.Balakrishnan 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 5. ,, A.Dhanapal 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 2. The petitioners filed O.A.No.1720 of 2001 (Writ Petition No.2343 of 2007 against the aforesaid impugned order. 3. Heard Mr. R.Mutukumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. C.K.Vishnupriya, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first Respondent and Mr. T.Ravikumar the learned counsel for second Respondent. 4. The impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioners . Hence, the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. The Honble Apex Court has clearly held in BHAGVAN SHUKLA vs UNION OF INDIA reported in 1994 (6) SCC 154 that no order resulting in civil consequences could be passed without hearing the aggrieved person. 5. However, more city compensatory allowance was paid by the concerned authorities on their own and it was not made pursuant to any mis-representations by the petitioners. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in SAHIB RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18. Para 5 of the said judgment is extracted here-under: "5.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. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18. Para 5 of the said judgment is extracted here-under: "5.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." In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Honble Apex Court, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.