Judgment :- 1. The petitioner entered into service as Demonstrator on 27.03.1978. The post of the petitioner was re-designated as Junior Chemist by amendment of service rules. The next channel of promotion from the post of Demonstrator/Junior Chemist is to the post of Chemist. 2. The eligibility condition for promotion was Diploma with two years service as Junior Chemist/Demonstrator. The petitioner was qualified to be promoted as Chemist, on completion of two years service as Junior Chemist/Demonstrator. 3. By virtue of amendment to the service rules on 20.04.1988, qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Chemist was changed to B.Sc. Degree. 4. The respondent by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had put in number of years of service and was the only the person with diploma qualification therefore, by taking experience as substitute for qualification, promoted the petitioner to the post of Chemist on 06.07.1993. 5. The petitioner joined the promoted on 20.04.1993. The promotion of the petitioner was on regular basis without any representation by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner thereafter without any notice, was served with the impugned order dated 18.02.2003 regularising the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 18.02.2003 by invoking Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules in relaxing the rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Technical Subordinate Service Special Rules, which stipulates B.Sc. Degree as educational qualification to the post of Chemist. 7. In view of the regularisation of promotion of the petitioner with effect from 18.02.2003, the impugned order was passed for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner, on the promoted post between the date of actual promotion and the date of regularisation of the promotion. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order on the face of it is arbitrary, as once the petitioner was promoted by taking experience into consideration, the petitioner could not be treated as unqualified, and in any case, the powers under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service were required to be exercised to regularise the promotion, and not to promote the petitioner with future date, as the petitioner in pursuance to his promotion was already performing duties of Chemist. 9. 9. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground, that though it affects the civil right of the petitioner, but it was passed without following the principle of natural justice, therefore is not sustainable in law. 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is against well settled law, that benefit even if wrongly given cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect, in absence of allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, 11. The learned Spl. Govt. Pleader opposed the writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner was fairly dealt with by the Government by exercising power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service, to grant relaxation in qualification to the petitioner therefore, cannot have any grievance against the order of recovery. 12. It is also the contention of the learned Spl. Govt. Pleader that once it is not disputed that there was error committed by the State, it was open to the State Government to rectify the error as per Rule 38 of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, the order of recovery being in consonance with rules, does not call for any interference of this Court. 13. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that an order affecting the civil right of a person, cannot be passed without following the principle of natural justice. It is also equally well settled that benefit even if wrongly given, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively in absence of allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. 14. The contention of the learned Spl. Govt. Pleader cannot be accepted. The impugned order cannot be said to be for the benefit of the petitioner, as by way of impugned order, the difference of salary paid to the petitioner on the promoted post was directed to be recovered, it is not open to the respondents to recover this amount, as even if the petitioner was unqualified to hold the post but he worked on the post under the order of the respondent therefore is entitled to the salary attached to the post. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioner was wrongly paid. 15. The second contention of the learned Spl. Govt. Pleader also deserves to be noticed to be rejected. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioner was wrongly paid. 15. The second contention of the learned Spl. Govt. Pleader also deserves to be noticed to be rejected. Rule 38 gives power to rectify the error, but it does not give jurisdiction to do it retrospectively. 16. For the reasons stated, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of recovery is set aside. No costs.