Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No. 1810/ Aa/ 97 dated 3.1.2001 and also the consequential order of recovery in Na.Ka. No. 1810/Aa/97 dated 3.1.2001. 2. The facts of the case reads as under, "The petitioner is working as Radiographer, Clinician Centre, Veterinary Hospital, Salem 1, Salem District. He was initially appointed as Lab Assistant on 2.3.1984. He was promoted as Radiographer on 15.5.1998. As per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 2258, Food and Agriculture Department dated 19.9.1956, the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Lab Assistant under direct recruitment is as follows:- 1. Below 25 years of age 2. Minimum General Educational Qualifications prescribed in the Schedule to the General Rules of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules. 3. A Certificate of Certified Lab Technician, provided that if a candidate with the Certificate of Certified Lab Technician is not available a candidate with the Certificate of Certified Lab Assistant may be appointed but he should pass the Certified Lab Technician Course within the period of probation. The petitioner obtained training as Lab Technician at the Cochin School of Pathology, Kerala. The said institution is a private institution and it is not a Certified Laboratory. 11 other Lab Assistants had also undergone training in such private institutions which were not certified laboratories. However, due to dearth of qualified candidates at that time the petitioner and 11 other candidates were appointed as Lab Assistants. In G.O.Ms. 39, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 28.2.1996, the Government issued orders relaxing Rule 5(3) of the Ad hoc Rules for the post of Lab Assistant under Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service in favour of the petitioner and 11 others so as to enable them to be appointed as Lab Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department with retrospective effect with monetary benefit from the date of issue of orders. Following the said orders, the petitioner's services were regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment namely 2.3.1984. However, the Assistant Director of Animal Disease Intelligence Unit, Salem 1 (the first respondent herein) has issued an order in Na.Ka. Following the said orders, the petitioner's services were regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment namely 2.3.1984. However, the Assistant Director of Animal Disease Intelligence Unit, Salem 1 (the first respondent herein) has issued an order in Na.Ka. No. 1810/Aa/97 dated 3.1.2001 (the impugned order) refixing the pay of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment without allowing the monetary benefit till 28.2.1996 and allowing him the monetary benefit only from 28.2.1996. The petitioner's pay has been refixed without allowing him the periodical increments till 28.2.1996. Another order (Consequential Order) has also been passed by the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1810/ Aa/ 97 dated 3.1.2001 directing recovery of the alleged excess sum paid to the petitioner from 1.10.1985 to 27.2.1996. Copies of the said orders have been enclosed along with this writ petition. The petitioner submits on advice that the impugned order is prima facie illegal, contrary to law and liable to be set aside." 3. The facts narrated above are not disputed. The only ground of challenge raised by the petitioner, is that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of recovery cannot be sustained as there are no allegations of fraud and misrepresentations, against the petitioner. 5. It is well settled principle of law, that any order affecting the civil rights of the parties, cannot be passed without complying with the principle of natural justice by giving opportunity to the delinquent to explain the position. 6. The impugned orders, having passed in violation of principle of natural justice cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in contending that the recovery cannot be effected even if the benefit was wrongly given, in absence of allegations of fraud and misrepresentations. The impugned order of recovery therefore is unsustainable in law. 8. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to refix the salary to the petitioner, if permissible in law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that it will not open to the respondents to effect recovery of amount said to be wrongly paid for want of any allegations of fraud and misrepresentations in getting the benefit. 9. It is made clear that it will not open to the respondents to effect recovery of amount said to be wrongly paid for want of any allegations of fraud and misrepresentations in getting the benefit. 9. For the reasons stated, the writ petition is ordered and the impugned orders are quashed, but with no order as to costs.