Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the orders No.Est.5(1)14366/200058,dt.26.9.2000, No.Est.5(1)/14366/ 2000.59, dt.26.9.2000 of the first respondent and the consequential orders issued vide No.107/2000/A3 dt.6.12.2000 and No.107/2000/A3 dt.6.12.2000 of the second respondent dated 05.12.2000. 2. The petitioner joined as Assistant Draftsman on 05.08.1981 and was subsequently promoted as Draftsman Grade II which was subsequently redesignated as Junior Draughting Officer. The service of the petitioner was regularised on 19.09.1981. It was on 2.12.1998, the petitioner was granted selection Grade with effect from 18.02.1992 in the post of Junior Draughting Officer. The order regularising the service of the petitioner to the post of Junior Draugting Officer was cancelled on 26.09.2000 and his service were regularised with effect from 16.11.1983. The petitioner was declared to have completed the probation on 15.11.1985. The granting selection grade to the petitioner was cancelled and revised selection grade was given with effect from 16.11.1993 in the post of Junior Draughting Officer. 3. In view of the order postponing the selection grade from 18.2.1992 to 16.11.1993, the respondent passed an order of recovery from the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order of recovery by contending that it was not open to the respondents to seek recovery from the petitioner in the absence of any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner in getting the selection grade. 5. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is now well settled that the benefit once granted cannot be recovered even if granted wrongly in the absence of any allegation of fraud, misrepresentation. Admittedly, there are no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner in granting the selection grade. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents now to recover the amount. Furthermore, the order is also not sustainable in view of violation of principle of natural justice, as order of recovery was passed without notice to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, but with no order as to cost.