Judgment :- 1. This order shall dispose of W.P.No.5758 & 5759 of 2007, as the common question of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions. 2. The petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Assistant on 31.03.1970, and was posted at ADW Primary School, Cheyyar Taluk, Puraiyur. The petitioner was promoted as Headmaster of Primary School in the year 1998, and also given charge of Warden, in the Government Boys Hostel, Cheyyur. 3. All the hostels were directed to purchase rice only from Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as T.N.C.S.C.). The Government had also fixed the rate in respect of every item. T.N.C.S.C. increased the rate of rice but the petitioner was bound to purchase rice only from T.N.C.S.C. under the orders of the State Government, and was also compelled to pay the revised rate. 4. This was brought to the notice of the Director during inspection. Some of the Wardens even requested the Directorate to pass written order. 5. However, when the matter was placed before the State Government, the rates were revised vide G.O.Ms.No.55, Backward Classes & Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 17.11.1994, but the State Government failed in its duty to ratify action of the Warden who were compelled to purchase rice from the Corporation on the revised rate, prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.55. 6. It is the submission of the petitioner, that the Warden had no authority or right to purchase rice from outside. Furthermore, they had no option to withhold payment, as the goods being purchased were essential commodities. Inspite of the fact that no fault could be attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner has been penalised by way of the impugned order, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,979/-(Rupees one lakh five thousand nine hundred and seventy nine only). 7. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of recovery, on the ground that the order passed is totally arbitrary, thus hit Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being outcome of non application of mind. 8. The competent authority before ordering recovery failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner was under the compulsion to purchase the goods from Civil Supplies Corporation which is a Government undertaking. The petitioner therefore, could not be penalised for having purchased the rice, at the price fixed by the Govt. Corporation. 9. 8. The competent authority before ordering recovery failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner was under the compulsion to purchase the goods from Civil Supplies Corporation which is a Government undertaking. The petitioner therefore, could not be penalised for having purchased the rice, at the price fixed by the Govt. Corporation. 9. The impugned order is also challenged being violative of principle of natural justice, as the order of recovery though affecting civil right of the petitioner has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was also passed after 7 years of the incident without explaining the delay. 10. The impugned order is otherwise outcome of non application of mind, as it is passed on audit objection which could be met by the department by explaining the correct position, for which the petitioner cannot be held guilty at all. 11. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Spl. Govt. Pleader by contending that the petitioner cannot take benefit of the delay, as he was under the obligation to buy the goods at the rate fixed by the State Government. The petitioner admittedly having been purchased the goods at higher price, is liable to pay the amount demanded in the impugned order. 12. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is not disputed that the rice was purchased from Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation which is a Government undertaking under the instructions of the Government, the price paid could not be said to be higher then the fixed by the Government. 13. It was for the Government to ratify the action. The petitioner cannot be held guilty of payment of higher price to the Government undertaking without alleging any motive. The impugned order also does not take notice of the fact that the matter was brought to the notice of the State Government by all the Wardens and request was made to the Director for necessary orders to be passed in this regard. The impugned order is also violative of principle of natural justice, as the impugned order of recovery affects civil rights of the petitioner which could not be passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the defence of the petitioner. 14. The impugned order is also violative of principle of natural justice, as the impugned order of recovery affects civil rights of the petitioner which could not be passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the defence of the petitioner. 14. The impugned order thus being totally arbitrary, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Otherwise also, the impugned order having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice cannot be sustained in law. W.P.No.5759 of 2007: 15. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. The retiral benefits of the petitioner have been withheld only for the reason that writ petition against the order of recovery is pending in this Court. 16. There is no justification with the respondent to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner, as the order of recovery was stayed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, thus there was no legally enforceable order, at the time of retirement of the petitioner which could entitle the respondents to withhold retiral benefits of the petitioner. 17. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no justification forthcoming, as to why the balance retiral benefits, were not released to the petitioner. 18. This petitioner also deserves to succeed, for the reason that this Court in W.P.No.6807 of 2007 has quashed the order of recovery. 19. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order of recovery, and writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to release retiral benefits of the petitioner within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on retiral benefits from the due date till the date of payment. No cost.