Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the impugned circular issued in Circular No: CI (2)/ 935 / 2001 dated 08.04.2002 and the records of the 2nd respondent herein pertaining to the impugned proceedings in No: AG ( A & E )/PEN/ P15/1/J79-1714/RTD/2003-2004/550 dated 08.02.2004 and quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is that petitioner is a B.E. Degree holder and joined Government Service as Assistant Engineer with effect from 26.05.1978. After putting up a service of 18 years and 2 months in the Post of Assistant Engineer (Selection Grade), petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer and joined the post on 22.07.1996. He retired from service as Assistant Executive Engineer on 31.07.2003 a.n. on attaining the age of superannuation. By his letter dated 29.08.2003, the 4th respondent herein submitted petitioner's pension proposals to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, in his letter dated 13.10.2003, informed the 4th respondent that re-fixation of petitioner's pay as per the 1st respondent's circular dated 03.09.1999 is wrong and has directed the 4th respondent to re-fix the same as per the revised circular of the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002. Thereafter, based on petitioner's written representation dated 22.10.2003, the 4th respondent re-submitted the pension proposals by substantiating the re-fixation with relevant rules and regulations in his letter dated 23.12.2003. Again, the 2nd respondent, in his Lr. No: P15/1/J79-1714/RTD/2003-2004/550 dated 08.03.2004, informed the 4th respondent about the reduction of petitioner's last drawn pay and pension besides directing the 4th respondent to recover the alleged excess from petitioner's D.C.R.G.. The petitioner represented his case before the Tamil Nadu P.W.D. Senior Engineers Association, the 5th respondent herein, which in turn presented a memorandum to the 1st respondent herein with facts and rules and requested the 1st respondent to revise his 2nd circular dated 08.04.2002. Since the 1st respondent has not replied to the said memorandum, petitioner is before this Court challenging both the circular issued by the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002 as well as the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.03.2004 requesting the 4th respondent to re-fix petitioner's pay as on 16.06.1998 as per the impugned circular of the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002 and to recover the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from the D.C.R.G. payable to him. Though the petitioner challenges the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.03.2004 on merits also, it is his categorical stand that the order directing to recover the alleged excess payment from the D.C.R.G. payable to the petitioner is passed behind his back without giving him any notice and as such it is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned circular of the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.03.2004 are contrary to law and was violated by material irregularity. The respondents ought to have appreciated the fact that G.O. Ms. No: 57, Finance dated 28.01.1991 was issued only with a view to compensate a person subsequently promoted and drawing lesser pay when compared to his lower post. The Government had issued orders directing that, if any point of time on or after 01.06.1998, a Government servant would have drawn more pay in the revised pay scale in the substantive post had he continued in it than in the officiating post in which he is actually working. He would also submit that petitioner’s pay was re-fixed only based on G.O.Ms. No: 57 dated 28.01.1991 and that in the case of one Mr.V.Murugesan A.E.E., the 2nd respondent had, in his letter No: PEN – 15/ 5/M-48-457/AR/2000 – 01/CPR.450 dated 21.06.2001, held that no downward revision and recovery is necessary and as such there is no reason on the part of the 2nd respondent for deviating from its earlier stand and there is no reason for passing the impugned proceedings which is in total contradiction with G.O. Ms. No: 57 dated 28.01.1991. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the impugned order of direction to recover from the DCRG payable to the petitioner is totally illegal inasmuch as it is passed behind the back of the petitioner without even giving a notice to the petitioner and that the respondents had failed to follow the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court regarding recovery. Counsel would also contend that the respondents failed to appreciate the fact that the terminal benefits are a meager compensation for the long years of service rendered by the petitioner and it is extremely cruel for an employer to tell his employee that he will not be paid his terminal benefits due to him that too without giving an opportunity of notice, hearing him, etc. and hence, the impugned order is one which is issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of his aforesaid contentions learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the following decisions, viz. (i) 1994 (6) S.C.C. 154 – Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and others (ii) 1995 Supplement (1) S.C.C. 18 – Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others (iii) 2002 (3) S.C.C. 302 – State of Karnataka and others vs. Mangalore University Non-teaching Employees Association and others (iv) 2008 (1) M.L.J. 358 – R.Premkumari vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. (v) 2009 (3) S.C.C.117 – State of Bihar and others vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad 6. The 1st respondent herein had filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner S. Jayaraman, Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, was working in the Hydrology Division of Ground Water Division, Trichy, and he retired from service on the afternoon of 31.07.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that while fixing the pay of the petitioner on movement to selection grade in the scale of pay of Rs.9100-275-14050 by combining the services rendered as Assistant Engineer selection grade and Assistant Executive Engineer ordinary grade in the identical scale as per G.O. Ms. No: 210 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per S) Department dated 11.3.1987 the provisions under Rule 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1989 as ordered in G.O. Ms. No: 57, Finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991 was given effect to before fixing in the Selection Grade Scale. This method of fixation was objected to by the Accountant General (Audit) and all the benefits accruing in the officiating post has to be availed before fixing the pay as per G.O. Ms. No: 57 Finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991. This method of fixation was objected to by the Accountant General (Audit) and all the benefits accruing in the officiating post has to be availed before fixing the pay as per G.O. Ms. No: 57 Finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991. This is because the presumptive move to Special Grade in the lower substantive post (Assistant Engineer) is permissible only after ordering actual move to selection grade in the higher officiating post (Assistant Executive Engineer) as the period of ten years have to be cleared by satisfying conditions for promotions. Thus, the pay in the officiating post of Assistant Executive Engineer has to be fixed first on movement of Selection Grade and then compared with the pay on presumptive move to special grade in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer. Consequently, revised illustration was issued vide Chief Engineer (General)'s Office Circular No: CI (2)/935/2001 dated 08.04.2002 based on Government Public Work Department clarification issued in Letter no: 7528 A'/A1/2002-2 dated 01.04.2002 confirming the procedure instructed by the Accountant – General (Audit), Tamil Nadu. The earlier illustration issued on 03.09.1999 by the then Chief Engineer (General) is without the order of competent authority and so it is to be treated as not valid. The competent authority to issue clarifications on such matters involving financial implication is the Government. Hence, based on the Government Orders the over paid amount was directed to be recovered from the individuals whose pay were not fixed in accordance with the rules and clarifications. 7. It is also submitted that the amount over paid to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered from his pay and allowances. Similar recovery orders were issued on several others are being implemented by recovering the amount from their pay in installments in respect of those in service and from their Death cum Retirement Gratuity for those who have retired. The petitioner, on movement to Selection Grade, has to avail all the benefits including the fixation on moving to Selection / Special Grade accruing in the officiating post i.e. before fixing the pay with reference to rule 4 (3) of the said Rules which is the basis of audit objection made by the Accountant – General (Audit) which was also confirmed by the Government, Public Works Department in Letter No: 7528A/ A1 / 2002-2 dated 1.4.2002. As per rule 4 (3) of the said Rules as ordered in G.O. Ms. As per rule 4 (3) of the said Rules as ordered in G.O. Ms. No: 57, Finance dated 28.01.1991, if a Government servant stands to benefit by remaining in the lower and substantive post in spite of his promotion to the higher and officiating post he can get his pay fixed in the next higher stage in the scale of the officiating post after notionally fixing his pay in the substantive post on the crucial date. But this provision can be availed only after availing all the benefits in the officiating post as clarified by the Government. It is submitted that the provisions under Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules as per G.O. Ms. No: 57 Finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991 is to be availed only after availing all the monetary benefits in the officiating post as in the case of junior getting more pay etc. Hence, availing two pay fixation benefits on one and the same date is not in order. The rule 4 (3) of the said Rules and the provision ordered in G.O. Ms. No: 57, finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991 was intended to offset the loss if any consequent on promotion is made good in all these cases on movement to selection grade in the officiating post. It is submitted that G.O. Ms. No: 210 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per S) Department, dated 11.03.1987 provides for counting the identical / higher scale of pay of the lower post in the Selection Grade / Special Grade while moving to selection grade / special grade in the officiating higher post while in service. This has nothing to do with the pay fixation on promotion as per Fundamental Rules 22 (B). The reason for not providing Fundamental Rules 22 (B) pay fixation for Assistant Engineer Selection Grade/Special Grade on promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer is that they have been enjoying the higher scale of pay applicable to first / second level promotion posts i.e. the scale of pay applicable to the petitioner (Rs. 8000-275-13500) and Executive Engineer (Rs.10000-325-15200) on movement to Selection Grade / Special Grade in the lower post (Assistant Engineer) without actually getting promoted which is not available to those for whom Fundamental Rules 22 (b) pay fixation is permitted. 8000-275-13500) and Executive Engineer (Rs.10000-325-15200) on movement to Selection Grade / Special Grade in the lower post (Assistant Engineer) without actually getting promoted which is not available to those for whom Fundamental Rules 22 (b) pay fixation is permitted. Combination of two services in the Selection Grade / Special Grade in the lower post (Assistant Engineer) and ordinary grade in the higher officiating post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the purpose of selection grade in the officiating post (Assistant Executive Engineer) is an additional benefit given to these persons and not for compensating for the Fundamental Rules 22 (B) pay fixation as presumed by the petitioner. 8. It is submitted by the respondents that in this case the individual whose ordinary grade scale of pay is Rs.6500-200-10500 before completing 30 years of service is moved to selection grade on completion of ten years in the scale applicable to first level promotion i.e. Assistant Executive Engineer at Rs. 8000-275-13500 and special grade on completion of 20 years of service in the scale of pay as applicable to the second level of promotion i.e. Executive Engineer at Rs. 1000-325-15200 which is far more beneficial without involving higher responsibilities. Those Assistant Engineers who get promoted before actually moving to Special grade are allowed to move to selection grade in the promoted post by computing the services rendered in the selection grade scale of Assistant Engineer as well i.e. before actual completing ten years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer. Here the petitioner after moving to selection grade can avail the benefits under rule 4 (3) of the said Rules as ordered in G.O. Ms. No: 57, Finance (Pay Cell II) Department date 28.01.1991 by comparing the benefits he would have received on presumptive move to special grade in the lower post (Assistant Engineer) had he continued without promotion. This presumptive move is permissible only when period covered up to the date of presumptive move is cleared by the competent authority who orders movement to selection grade in the officiating post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Hence, only on ordering the movement to selection grade in the officiating post (Assistant Executive Engineer) the presumptive move to special grade in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer takes place. If the selection grade in the officiating post is postponed on account of charges, punishments, etc. Hence, only on ordering the movement to selection grade in the officiating post (Assistant Executive Engineer) the presumptive move to special grade in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer takes place. If the selection grade in the officiating post is postponed on account of charges, punishments, etc. the presumptive move to special grade in the substantive post also has to be postponed. Thus it is very clear that the pay fixation also has to be followed by first fixing the pay in the selection grade scale of Assistant Executive Engineer and then the fixation as per rule 4 (3) of the said Rules. This is the basis under which the Accountant – General had raised audit objection which was confirmed by the Government. The earlier order of the Engineer – in – Chief & Chief Engineer (General) issued on 3.9.1999 is not valid as the competent authority to clarify on the G.O. is Government. Hence revised illustrations were issued on 8.4.2002 based on the clarification issued by the Government Public Works Department in letter No: 7528 A/A1/2002-2 dated 1.4.2002. The unintended benefits enjoyed by the individual ordered to be recovered is in order as per the Government instructions. It is submitted by the respondents that the Government had introduced the selection grade / special grade system only to give relief to those who are stagnating without promotions in the same post for more than 10 / 20 years. Even though this is not a promotion involving higher responsibilities, the conditions stipulated for promotions such as pendency of charges, punishments, adverse remarks in the personal filed, etc. are to be satisfied before moving a person to selection grade and special grade for which the Chief Engineer (General) is the competent authority to order for such move. When a person is promoted to next level post before completing 10 /20 years of service in the same post i.e. before actual movement to selection grade / special grade, he cannot be moved to selection grade / special grade in the lower post after joining the promoted post as the intention of the Government for elevation to selection grade / special grade is meant for those who do not get promotion within 10 / 20 years. Thus an Assistant Executive Engineer cannot be moved to special grade in the lower post if he was promoted before completion of 20 years of service in the lower post if he was promoted before completion of 20 years of service in the lower post of Assistant Engineer. The presumptive move of special grade in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is possible only after elevating the individual to the selection grade in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by the Chief Engineer (General) as the period to count for presumptive move the special grade in the lower post of Assistant Engineer is cleared after ordering for movement to selection grade in the officiating post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, it is very clear that one has to move to selection grade in the Assistant Executive Engineer first, get the pay fixed in the selection grade scale of Assistant Executive Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.9100-275-14050 and then compare the pay on presumptive move in the lower post and avail the better of the two as per G.O. Ms. No: 57 Finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991. Since the movement to selection grade/special grade is not a promotion, the pay fixation under Fundamental Rules 22 (1) (a) (1) is not possible as the individual has no option to get his pay fixed at a later date on movement to selection grade/ special grade. Hence, comparing those moving to selection grade / special grade not involving higher responsibilities with those promoted to higher post carrying higher responsibilities is not correct. It is also submitted by the respondents that the over payment made to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered by the fourth respondent based on the orders of the Government as explained above and no advance notice is required as the unintended benefit enjoyed by the petitioner causing burden on the State Exchequer has to be made good by the petitioner with least delay and therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. In support of their stand that the recovery ordered is correct, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely upon the decision reported in 2010 (1) S.C.C.440 – Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana and others vs. Israil Khan and others, wherein it is held that, "7. 9. In support of their stand that the recovery ordered is correct, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely upon the decision reported in 2010 (1) S.C.C.440 – Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana and others vs. Israil Khan and others, wherein it is held that, "7. There is no “principle” that any excess payment to employees should not be recovered back by the employer. This Court, in certain cases has merely used its judicial discretion to refuse recovery of excess wrong payments of emoluments/allowances from employees on the ground of hardship, where the following conditions were fulfilled: “(a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) 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.” 8. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India this Court explained the reason for extending such concession thus: (SCC pp. 728-29, para 28) “28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” (emphasis supplied) 9. What is important is, recovery of excess payments from employees is refused only where the excess payment is made by the employer by applying a wrong method or principle for calculating the pay/allowance, or on a particular interpretation of the applicable rules which is subsequently found to be erroneous. But where the excess payment is made as a result of any misrepresentation, fraud or collusion, courts will not use their discretion to deny the right to recover the excess payment. 10. In these cases, the Rules specifically provided that the employees should be paid a consolidated salary. Therefore without amendment of the Rules, the Managing Committees could not have passed a resolution for giving the benefit of regular pay scales that too with retrospective effect to the employees. Further, the Societies did not have the funds to make such payments and illegally diverted the funds made available for disbursal of loans to farmers, for the purpose of making such excess payment to the employees. When the resolution extending such benefit was passed and the amounts earmarked for loans for farmers were diverted for making payment to the employees, the Managing Committees as well as the employees were aware that the resolution and consequential payment was contrary to the Rules. There was no question of any wrong calculation or erroneous understanding of the legal position. Most of the employees who received similar relief have refunded or have agreed to refund the excess payment. Making any exception in the case of the respondents would also lead to discrimination. 11. Therefore, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders of the High Court holding that the illegal payments to the respondents need not be refunded to them are set aside. However, having regard to the hardship put forth by the employees, the appellants are directed to calculate and recover the excess payment in twenty-four monthly instalments." 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents made available on record and the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents made available on record and the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 11. The petitioner's case is that he is a B.E. Degree holder and joined Government Service as Assistant Engineer with effect from 26.05.1978. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer and joined the post on 22.07.1996. He retired from service as Assistant Executive Engineer on 31.07.2003 a.n. on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement when the 4th respondent herein submitted petitioner's pension proposals to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent, by his letter dated 13.10.2003, informed the 4th respondent that fixation of petitioner's pay as per the 1st respondent's circular dated 03.09.1999 is wrong and has directed the 4th respondent to re-fix the same as per the revised circular of the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002. Thereafter, the 4th respondent re-submitted the pension proposals by substantiating the fixation with relevant rules and regulations in his letter dated 23.12.2003. Again, the 2nd respondent, in his Lr. No: P15/1/J79-1714/RTD/2003-2004/550 dated 08.03.2004, informed the 4th respondent about the reduction of petitioner's last drawn pay and pension besides directing the 4th respondent to recover the alleged excess from petitioner's D.C.R.G.. As the petitioner represented his case before the Tamil Nadu P.W.D. Senior Engineers Association, the 5th respondent herein, a memorandum was presented to the 1st respondent herein with facts and rules and a request was made to the 1st respondent to revise his 2nd circular dated 08.04.2002. Since the 1st respondent has not replied to the said memorandum, petitioner is before this Court challenging both the circular issued by the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002 as well as the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.03.2004 requesting the 4th respondent to re-fix petitioner's pay as on 16.06.1998 as per the impugned circular of the 1st respondent dated 08.04.2002 and to recover the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from the D.C.R.G. payable to him. 12. 12. Although the petitioner challenges the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.03.2004 ordering recovery on merits also, his main contention is that the order directing to recover the alleged excess payment from the D.C.R.G. payable to the petitioner is passed behind his back without giving him any notice and as such it is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the second circular issued by the first respondent is based on the instructions given by the Government in Letter No: 7528A/A1/2002-2 dated 1.4.2002 after having pointed out by the Accountant – General. He would also submit that the competent authority for giving clarification for pay fixation involving additional financial commitment is the Government and that the reason for modifying the earlier circular dated 3.9.1999 is that the Accountant General has objected to the fixation of pay as per Circular No: CI (2)/9730/99-2 dated 3.9.1999 because the Accountant General has stated that the benefits accruing in the officiating post has to be availed before fixing the pay as per rule 4 (3) of the said Rules as ordered in G.O. Ms. No: 57, Finance (Pay Cell II) Department dated 28.01.1991 which is also logically and reasonably correct. As regards the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him before ordering the recovery, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that since the over payment made to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered by the 4th respondent based on the orders of the Government, no advance notice is required as the unintended benefit enjoyed by the petitioner causing burden on the State exchequer has to be made good by the petitioner with least delay. 13. While considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is to be seen that time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has laid down the law that the principles of natural justice has to be strictly followed and any violation cannot be permitted by the Courts. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision reported in 1994 (6) S.C.C. 154 [Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India], wherein the Supreme Court held that, "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision reported in 1994 (6) S.C.C. 154 [Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India], wherein the Supreme Court held that, "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner’s 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. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order 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 25-7-1991, 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 17-9-1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25-7-1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant from Rs 190 to Rs 181 w.e.f. 18-12-1970." In the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, the Supreme Court held that, "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. 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 State of Karnataka v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Assn., reported in (2002) 3 SCC 302 , the Supreme Court held that, "12. Though the above discussion merits the dismissal of the writ petitions and the denial of relief to the respondents, we are of the view that on the special facts of this case, the employees of the University have to be protected against the move to recover the excess payments up to 31-3-1997. When the employees concerned drew the allowances on the basis of financial sanction accorded by the competent authority i.e. the Government and they incurred additional expenditure towards house rent, the employees should not be penalized for no fault of theirs. It would be totally unjust to recover the amounts paid between 1-4-1994 and the date of issuance of GO No. 42 dated 13-2-1996. Even thereafter, it took considerable time to implement the GO. It is only after 5-3-1997 the Government acted further to implement the decision taken a year earlier. Final orders regarding recovery were passed on 25-3-1997, as already noticed. The Vice-Chancellor of the University also made out a strong case for waiver of recovery up to 31-3-1997. That means, the payments continued up to March 1997 despite the decision taken in principle. In these circumstances, we direct that no recovery shall be effected from any of the university employees who were compelled to take rental accommodation in Mangalore city limits for want of accommodation in the university campus up to 31-3-1997. The amounts paid thereafter can be recovered in instalments. In these circumstances, we direct that no recovery shall be effected from any of the university employees who were compelled to take rental accommodation in Mangalore city limits for want of accommodation in the university campus up to 31-3-1997. The amounts paid thereafter can be recovered in instalments. As regards the future entitlement, it is left to the Government to take appropriate decision, as we already indicated above. Subject to the above direction and observation, the appeals are allowed. No costs." In the case of State of Bihar v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117 , the Supreme Court held as under : "19. It is not needed for this Court to verify the veracity of the statements made by the parties. If at all the respondent entered the second date of birth at a subsequent period of time, the authorities concerned should have detected it and there should have been a detailed enquiry to determine whether the respondent was responsible for the same. It has been held in a catena of judicial pronouncements that even if by mistake, higher pay scale was given to the employee, without there being misrepresentation or fraud, no recovery can be effected from the retiral dues in the monetary benefit available to the employee." 14. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of R.Prem Kumari vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 (1) M.L.J. 358 held that, "9. The second ground of attack by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the finding of the learned Judge found in paragraph 9 is erroneous that even if it is a case of wrong fixation, the employee is entitled for notice, and, therefore, this Court must follow the decision of the Surpeme Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 18. In that decision, it is clearly stated by the Supreme Court that even if wrong fixation has been made by the authorities, when recovery of the same is made, minimum principle of natural justice has to be followed and, therefore, the employee is entitled for notice. We are bound to follow the said binding ratio. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge found in paragraph 9 of the order to that extent is not legal and proper. 10. We are bound to follow the said binding ratio. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge found in paragraph 9 of the order to that extent is not legal and proper. 10. Under the above circumstances, we hereby direct the second respondent to give a notice to the appellant with reference to the recoveries to be made and justification for the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and personal hearing may be granted by the 2nd respondent. After hearing the objections of the appellant, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the appellant. Till decision is taken, the respondents are restrained from making any recovery of any amount from the salary of the appellant. " 15. Thus, it is settled legal position that in cases where recovery is sought to be made from the employee, the minimum principle of natural justice has to be followed and as such, the employee is entitled for notice. It is seen from the perusal of the documents made available on record that in the case on hand no notice was given to the petitioner before ever passing the impugned order of recovery. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and discussions made above and noticing the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the impugned proceedings in so far as recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner alone is set aside. However, if the respondents are of the opinion that the fixation is otherwise wrong or contrary to the Government Orders or Rules, it is open to them to follow the procedure contemplated under law and pass appropriate orders if necessary. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.