Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.7903 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner served as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I and he retired from service on 31.07.1997 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was granted Selection Grade in Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, with effect from 07.08.1992 by a proceeding dated 11.12.1992 of the District Collector, Nagapattinam. However, by a subsequent proceeding dated 17.06.1997 of the District Collector, Thiruvarur, the Selection Grade was granted from 03.01.1986, instead of from 07.08.1992. Later, it was found by the first respondent that the petitioner was erroneously given Selection Grade from 03.01.1986 and the petitioner is entitled to Selection Grade only from 07.08.1992. Hence, the second respondent re-fixed the pay of the petitioner and also directed recovery of excess amount from DCRG, by an order dated 23.06.1998 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7903 of 1998 (W.P.No.35523 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 23.06.1998. 4. Heard P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.M.Devadoss, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard, before passing the order of re-fixation of pay and recovery. The impugned order resulted in serious civil consequences. 6. It has been categorically held by the Honble Supreme Court in BHAGVAN SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1994 (6) SCC 154 that no order could be passed by an authority against any one resulting in civil consequences without hearing the concerned person. The relevant para from the said judgment is extracted here-under: "3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioners basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs.190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs.181 p.m. from Rs.190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs.181 p.m. from Rs.190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the other came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.07.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.09.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.07.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs.190 to Rs.181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970." 7. The re-fixation pursuant to the impugned order results in serious civil consequences as the petitioner has to face monetary loss. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order, after hearing the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to complete the exercises within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.