JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at Perunkanchi Elementary School on 18.09.1959. The petitioner was transferred to SR. Polakunam Elementary School on 28.09.1959. The petitioner thereafter served as Secondary Grade Teacher and Headmaster at various schools on routine transfers as per the 2. The submission of petitioner is that he served as Headmaster in the Elementary School as well as Middle School, which were interchangeable posts, for a period of 23 years from, i.e. 11.06.1973 till 30.06.1996. The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to the Special Grade as recommended by the 4th Pay Commission. 3. The Government accepted the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission, and granted Special Grade salary to the petitioner vide order dated 18.11.1993 with effect from 28.08.1994 till date of his retirement. 4. The submission of petitioner is that the Director of Elementary Education clarified vide order Na.Ka.No.25348/ED/2/94 dated 02.08.1994, that while calculating the period of service, for grant of special grade salary, the total period of service as Head Master, Middle School prior to 01.10.1970 was also to be considered, as the service rendered as Head Master Middle School and Head Master Elementary School, with pay protection is to be considered as service on the same post. 5. The second respondent, by ignoring the 4th pay commission's recommendations and clarification referred to above, passed the impugned order dated 24.05.2000, refusing to grant proportionate pension, by taking note of special grade pay drawn by petitioner, with further direction to deduct a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), alleged to have been paid erroneously to the petitioner, by grant of special grade. 6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of withdrawal of special grade pay and recovery, has approached this Court, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order; details given below: 1. firstly on the ground that though the order affects the civil rights of petitioner, it has been passed without following principles of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be sustained in law. 2. Secondly, that the impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary, being against settled principles of law, that benefit even if erroneously given, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to effect the recovery in absence of allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. 3. 2. Secondly, that the impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary, being against settled principles of law, that benefit even if erroneously given, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to effect the recovery in absence of allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. 3. Thirdly, that the impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary, being outcome of misreading of Government instructions, laying down, that post of Headmaster in the Elementary School as well as Middle School / Higher Elementary School is in the same scale of pay, and interchangeable, with pay protection, therefore, total service is to be counted for the grant of special grade pay. 8. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in V.Ramakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, W.P.No.3568 of 2007, decided on 23.12.2011. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader opposed this writ petition, by contending that the petitioner served as Headmaster from 19.10.1973 to 30.06.1996, therefore, the petitioner did not hold the post of Headmaster Middle School on 02.10.1970, thus, was not entitled to the special grade pay. 10. This contention of learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that this Court has held, that the posts of Headmaster in the Elementary School as well as Middle School / Higher Elementary School are interchangeable. The service rendered in these posts is to be taken into consideration for grant of special grade pay. If the law laid down by this Court, is applied to the facts of present case, no other conclusion than the one that the impugned order cannot be sustained, can be arrived at. The impugned order otherwise also cannot be sustained, as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and also for the reason that in absence of allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, no recovery could be effected. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to refix the pension of petitioner, by taking into consideration the pay last drawn by petitioner in the special grade. No costs.