Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order No. Estt/AO(OE-II)/Misc/2006/A dated 27.04.2007 as also the consequential order No. Estt/AO(OE-II)/2007/A dated 18.12.2007 with the consequential relief of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to regularize the post of petitioner as Controller of Stores. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of petitioner by filing W.P.No.23 of 2009. 3. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Controller of Stores – Class I through employment exchange on 31.08.1989 and was promoted as Deputy Controller of Stores on 01.06.2000. The petitioner, while working as Deputy Controller of Stores, has been given additional charge of Controller of Stores, i.e. Head of Department on 11.04.2005. 4. That as the petitioner was discharging the duties of higher responsibilities, of Controller of Stores, therefore, was sanctioned additional remuneration as per Chennai Port Trust (Pay and Allowances, etc.) Regulations, 2001. 5. Regulation 36 of Chennai Port Trust (Pay and Allowances, etc.) Regulations, 2001, reads as under: 36. The Chairman may appoint an employee already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of other independent posts at one time, under the Board, provided that no such appointment:- 1. of an employee referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 or 2. to a post referred to in the clause as aforesaid shall be made except with the prior approval of the Central Government. In such cases the employee's pay is regulated as follows: (i) Where an employee is formally to hold full charge of the duties of a higher post in the same office as his own and in the same cadre/line of promotion, in addition to his ordinary duties, he shall be allowed the pay admissible to him in the higher post, unless the Chairman reduces his officiating pay under Regulation 26 but no additional pay shall, however, be allowed for performing the duties of a lower post. (ii) Where an employee is formally appointed to hold dual charges of two posts in the same cadre in the same office carrying identical scales of pay, no additional pay shall be admissible irrespective of the period of dual charge Provided that if the employee is appointed to an additional post which carries a special pay, he shall be allowed such special pay, (iii) Where an employee is formally appointed to hold charge of another post or posts which is or are not in the same office, or which, though in the same office, is or are not in the same cadre/line of promotion, he shall be allowed the pay of the higher post, or of the higher post, if he holds charge of more than two posts, in addition to ten percent of the presumptive pay of the additional post or posts, if the additional charge is held for a period exceeding 39 days but not exceeding 3 months. Provided that if in any particular case it is considered necessary that the employee should hold charge of another post or posts for a period exceeding 3 months, the concurrence of the Government where the appointing authority is the Government or the Chairman in other cases shall be obtained for payment of the additional pay beyond the period of 3 months; (iv) Where an officer is formally appointed to hold full additional charge of another post, the aggregate of pay and additional pay shall in no case exceed Rs.8,000/- (v) No additional pay shall be admissible to an employee who is appointed to hold current charge of the routine duties of another post or posts irrespective of the duration of the additional charge. (vi) If compensatory allowance is attached to one or more of the posts the employee shall draw such compensatory allowances as the Chairman may fix. Provided that such allowance shall not exceed the total of the compensatory allowances attached to all the posts." 6. That the petitioner has also disclosed a list of Officers, who were given additional payment for discharging the duties of higher responsibilities. The case of petitioner is that in view of Regulation 36 reproduced herein above, no fault could be found with the sanction of higher pay to the petitioner for performing the duties of higher responsibilities. 7. That the petitioner has also disclosed a list of Officers, who were given additional payment for discharging the duties of higher responsibilities. The case of petitioner is that in view of Regulation 36 reproduced herein above, no fault could be found with the sanction of higher pay to the petitioner for performing the duties of higher responsibilities. 7. That without issuance of any notice, but merely on the basis of audit objection, the petitioner was served with order dated 14.11.2006, reducing the salary of petitioner by withdrawing the additional remuneration, which were ordered for performing the duties of Controller of Stores. 8. The order also stipulated, that the excess amount of is Rs.1,96,373/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Three only) paid to the petitioner be recovered in the monthly installment of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only), starting from the month of May 2007. 9. The impugned orders, reducing the salary of petitioner and ordering recovery have been challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that, i. the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before reducing his salary and ordering recovery. ii. the impugned order is a non speaking order and suffers from vice of arbitrariness, as the respondents have failed to take note of the Regulation 36 under which the petitioner was entitled to the enhanced salary for performing the duties of Controller of Stores. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the writ petition, on the ground, that the post of Controller of Stores had fallen vacant, and the petitioner was given additional charge to look after the non statutory administratative functions of the Stores department, being senior most Deputy Controller of Stores. 11. However, the statutory powers of Controller of Stores such as administrative/financial powers were with the Chief Mechanical Engineer. Thereafter, on retirement of Thiru K. Ramraj, the then Chief Mechanical Engineer on 30.06.2006. the Chairman directed that the statutory powers for the post of Controller of Stores be looked after by the Chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust. 12. The petitioner COS i/c was ordered to obtain statutory and financial approval on matters relating to the erstwhile Stores Department from the Chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust. 13. the Chairman directed that the statutory powers for the post of Controller of Stores be looked after by the Chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust. 12. The petitioner COS i/c was ordered to obtain statutory and financial approval on matters relating to the erstwhile Stores Department from the Chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust. 13. It was on account of this, that the Accounts Department raised query dated 14.09.2006, that the petitioner was paid the incharge allowance, while he was obtaining financial approval from CME, and subsequently was ordered to obtain statutory and financial approval from CME, therefore, the petitioner was only exercising day to day usual non statutory powers of the post of Controller of Stores, therefore, was only entitled to 1/10th of the basic pay in the scale of pay of Rs.17500-22300 in the post of COS in addition to his pay as Deputy Controller of Stores in the scale of Rs.10750-16750 with effect from 11.04.2005. 14. It is also contended, that as per Article 165 of Chowdry's Compilation CSR, the petitioner was not entitled to full pay as Controller of Stores, but was entitled to only 1/10th of basic pay in the scale of pay of Controller of Stores in addition to his substantive pay. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended, that the petitioner was not appointed to hold full charge of Controller of Stores, as stipulated under Regulation 36(2) of the Chennai Port Trust (Pay and Allowances, etc.) Regulations, 2001 and FR 49 (1), therefore, he was not entitled to receive incharge allowance. The impugned order therefore did not call for any interference. 16. However, it is not denied, that no notice was issued to the petitioner before ordering recovery from the petitioner and reducing his pay, nor the respondents have placed any order on record, which may have been passed under Regulation 26 of the Chennai Port Trust (Pay and Allowances, etc.) Regulations, 2001. 17. Regulation 26 of the Chennai Port Trust (Pay and Allowances, etc.) Regulations, 2001, reads as under: 17. The Chairman may fix the pay of an officiating employee at an amount less than that admissible under these regulatioins. EXPLANATION: 1. The power conferred under this regulation is not exercisable save by a special order passed in an individual case and on a consideration of the facts of the case. The Chairman may fix the pay of an officiating employee at an amount less than that admissible under these regulatioins. EXPLANATION: 1. The power conferred under this regulation is not exercisable save by a special order passed in an individual case and on a consideration of the facts of the case. A general order purporting to oust universally the operation of the pay fixation regulations is not permissible. 2. This regulation cannot be invoked in respect of regular cadre promotions where the pay has to be fixed under the relevant regulation. 3. This regulation can be invoked to restrict the increase in pay in a case in which an employee is appointed to hold one or more additional posts or transferred on deputation/foreign service to another post outside the line of his promotion or appointed to officiate in a higher post or any other similar case." 18. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner was given charge of Controller of Stores by the Chairman with effect from 11.04.2005. It is also not in dispute, that the petitioner was granted the benefit of pay under Regulation 36 (2) for performing the duties of higher responsibilities. If that is so, in absence of any order under Regulation 26 by Chairman, it was not open to the respondents to withdraw the order, granting additional salary or order recovery from the petitioner. 19. It is well settled law, that any order affecting the civil rights of a person, cannot be passed without following the principles of natural justice. In this case, order has been passed, merely on the basis of audit objection without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order, being violative of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. 20. The impugned order also cannot be sustained, in view of the settled law, that the benefit given to an employee, even if wrongly, cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect, unless there are allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against that employee. There are no such allegations against the petitioner. It was therefore not open to the respondents to effect recovery from the petitioner. 21. There are no such allegations against the petitioner. It was therefore not open to the respondents to effect recovery from the petitioner. 21. The impugned order can also be said to be arbitrary and amounts to colourable exercise of power, as the benefit granted to petitioner is sought to be recovered under CSR Rules, which are not applicable, as the service conditions of petitioner are governed by Chennai Port Trust Regulations, which do not stipulate payment of 1/10th of additional pay. Rather the rules stipulate payment of full allowance attached to the post. It was for the respondents to get the work or not, but it cannot be the ground to deny the benefit under the Regulation, specially when the Regulation 26 gives power to the Chairman to fix lesser remuneration. The Chairman did not invoke the Regulation 26 to fix the pay of petitioner, while performing the duties of Controller of Stores. Therefore, it was not open to the respondents either to withdraw the benefit granted to the petitioner or effect recovery. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. 23. No costs.