Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Velu praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Madamus to call for the impugned order passed by the second respondent Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Alandur, Chennai in his proceedings No.3141-4/EA3/ALR/2004, dated 27.9.2004 and the consequential order of recovery passed by the second respondent in Proceedings No.3141-4/EA3/ALR/2004, dated 24.6.2005 and quash the same with a direction to the second respondent to restore the pay fixation as existed prior to the issuance of the impugned order and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Fitter Grade II on 23.3.1972 in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Maintenance Division, Alandur, Chennai. After some time, the service of the petitioner was regularised with effect from 1.1.1978 and his pay was fixed in the time scale of pay applicable to the post of Fitter Grade II with effect from the date of regularisation i.e. 1.1.1978. On completion of ten years of qualifying service, he prayed for Selection Grade Scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1988. Accordingly, his pay was fixed in the Selection Grade Scale of pay of Rs.610-1075. Thereafter, he opted for the revised scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1988. Accordingly, he was fixed with the revised Selection Grade Scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.6.1988. While so, the Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, Alandur, Chennai issued Proceedings No.3141-4/EA3/ALR/2004, dated 27.9.2004 refixing the pay of the petitioner in the lower scale of pay of Rs.1100-1660 with effect from 1.6.1988, as against the previous fixation of the scale of pay Rs.1200-2040. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.11.2004 to the second respondent marking a copy to the first respondent Managing Director, TWAD Board, Chennai 5. Since then no order has been passed on the said representation. While so, the second respondent Executive Engineer, TWAD Board passed the proceedings No.3141-4/EA 3/ALR/2004, dated 27.9.2004 reducing the scale of pay from Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 to Rs.1100-25-1150-30-1660 in the post of Fitter Grade II (Selection Grade) with effect from 1.6.1988 and again by another order dated 24.6.2005, the second respondent ordered to recover a sum of Rs.23,480/- claiming to be the alleged excess amount said to have been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition challenging the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent issued the proceedings in Proc.No.3141-4/EA3/ALR/2004, dated 27.9.2004 stating that the Executive Engineer fixed the scale of pay of the petitioner to the promotional post of Fitter Grade II at Rs.1230/-with effect from 1.6.1988 in the Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 as per B.P.Ms.No.321/dated 30.11.1992. The Managing Director, TWAD Board addressed to the Government for clarification to the scale of pay of Selection Grade Electrician/Fitter Grade II for allowing the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 or to restrict the scale of pay of Rs.1100-1600 on par with the scale of pay of promotion post of Fitter Grade I ordinary Grade and the same was clarified by the Government whether the promotion post happens to be on a lower scale of pay than the Selection Grade Scale of pay employees in such posts are eligible for Selection Grade scale applicable to the promotion post only (i.e.) Selection Grade scale should be limited to the pay scale at the first level promotion post. Hence, the scale of pay of the post of Selection Grade of Fitter Grade II should be allowed at Rs.1100-25-1150-30-1660 (i.e.) the Ordinary Grade scale of pay of Fitter Grade. Therefore, the Executive Engineer based on the Government Order and the Board's Order, revised and refixed the scale of pay of the petitioner in the Selection Grade Scale of pay of Rs.1100-25-1150-30-1660 with effect from 1.6.1988 instead of Rs.1200-2040. 4. Morevoer, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequently, the second respondent Executive Engineer has passed an order of recovery in Proc.No.3141-4/EA 3/ALR/2004, dated 24.6.2005 stating that the scale of pay of the petitioner in the promotional post of Fitter Grade II (Special Grade) has been reduced from 1200-30-1560-40-2040 to Rs.1100-25-1150-30-1660 in the post of Fitter Grade II (Selection Grade) with effect from 1.6.1988 i.e. the ordinary grade scale, which is less than the Selection Grade scale of Fitter Grade II, in view of that, the impugned order of recovery of Rs.23,480/- has to be made from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.390/-in 59 installments and Rs.470/- in 60th installment, cannot be found fault with. 5. 5. Again, it was pleaded that in view of the order dated 27.9.2004 passed by the Executive Engineer, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the lower scale of Rs.1100-1660 against the previous fixation of Rs.1200-2040, which is lesser than the Selection Grade scale of Fitter Grade II and therefore, the Selection Grade scale of Fitter Grade II should be restricted to the said Ordinary Grade scale of Fitter Grade I. Again, while reading out the impugned order dated 27.9.2004 he highlighted that the clarification made by the Secretary to Government in his letter No.34187/WS5/2002-2, dated 20.12.2000 based on the Government Order and Board's Order, the second respondent ought not to have wrongly refixed the scale of pay of the petitioner. 6. Again while challenging the said reasoning, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the service of the petitioner was regularised from 1.1.1978. On completing the ten more years of service, he has moved to the Selection Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.610-1075 with effect from 01.06.1988. Accordingly, the respondent Department has fixed the Selection Grade Scale Pay of Rs.610-1075. Subsequently, when G.O.Ms.No.666 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 27.06.1989 was introduced after the V Pay Commission, the said G.O.Ms.No.666 has given more scale of pay from 1.6.1988. Hence, the petitioner opted for revised Scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was given revised Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.6.1988 and the petitioner was also paid with the annual increment for 16 years in the revised scale of pay. Therefore, the reasoning given by the respondent Department that the petitioner's Selection Grade scale of pay, which has been given to Fitter Grade II higher than the Scale of pay to the promotional post of Fitter Grade I, which is an Ordinary Grade Scale of Pay of Fitter Grade I, is absolutely improper and unjustifiable. When there is no irregularity and illegality committed in granting benefit of Selection Grade of Pay on completing 10 years of service from 1.1.1978 to 1.1.1988 and the petitioner rightly moved to the Selection Grade of pay with effect from 28.3.1988 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 27.06.1989, which gives higher Scale of Pay to the Selection Grade Fitter Grade II with effect from 1.6.1988, the impugned orders passed by the second respondents are liable to be set aside. 7. 7. Finally, it was contended that when no notice whatsoever was given before passing the impugned order dated 27.9.2004 in refixing the petitioner's pay in the lower Scale of Pay with effect from 1.6.1988 Rs.1200-2040 to Rs.1100-1660 and also the consequential impugned order of recovery dated 24.6.2005 passed to recover a sum of Rs.23,480/- from the pay of the petitioner, the said two impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed this Court to set aside both the impugned orders dated 27.9.2004 and 24.6.2005. 8. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner, on completion of 10 of years in the post of Fitter Grade II, is entitled to get benefit of Selection Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.610- 1075 from 1.1.1978 to 1.1.1988. After V Pay Commission and G.O.Ms.No.666 dated 27.06.1989came into force, the scale of pay of the petitioner was revised in the scale of pay Rs.1,200-2040 with effect from 1.6.1988. Further, he was also paid with all the annual increments for about 16 years. 9. It was further admitted in paragraph "h" of the counter affidavit that by the proceedings No.F6/EA2/ALR/98, dated 24.03.1998, the petitioner was permitted to draw the pay fixation incremental arrears with effect from 28.03.1987 onwards. Resultantly, he was also paid with all arrears. 10. Thereafter, when the Managing Director of TWAD Board, has addressed a letter dated 07.09.2000 to the Secretary to Government M.A.& W.S. Department, Chennai for clarification regarding the scale of pay to be adopted for Electricians, Grade II/Fitter Grade II, the Secretary to Government in his reply letter NO.34187/WS5/2002-2, dated 20.12.2000 informed the Managing Director/first respondent stating thus: "Whenever the promotion posts happen to be on a lower scale of pay than the Selection Grade scale of pay, employees in such posts are eligible for selection grade scale applicable to the promotion post only (i.e.) Selection Grade scale should be limited to the pay scale at the first level promotion post. Hence, the Scale of Pay of the post of Selection Grade Electrician Grade II/ Fitter Grade II has to be fixed at Rs.1,100/-to 1,660/- i.e. the Scale of Pay of ordinary Grade of Electrician Grade I/Fitter Grade I, which is the promotion category of Electrician Grade II/Fitter Grade II. Hence, the Scale of Pay of the post of Selection Grade Electrician Grade II/ Fitter Grade II has to be fixed at Rs.1,100/-to 1,660/- i.e. the Scale of Pay of ordinary Grade of Electrician Grade I/Fitter Grade I, which is the promotion category of Electrician Grade II/Fitter Grade II. Further, the Joint Chief Engineer (G1), TWAD Board has also issued instructions in Letter No.WCE 1/27597/2000, dated 23.02.2001 to fix the pay of Electrician/Fitter Grade II in the Selection Grade as per the instructions issued in the Government's Letter No.34187/WS5/2002-2, dated 20.12.2000." Accordingly, the basic pay of the petitioner was revised and refixed under the Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.1100-25-1150-30-1660 with effect from 01.06.1988 from Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 by the proceedings No.3141-4/EA-3/ALR/2004, dated 27.09.2004. 11. It was further admitted in the counter affidavit that following the order dated 27.9.2004, the order of recovery dated 24.6.2005 was passed to recover the excess amount of Rs.23,480/-, which has been paid to the petitioner in 60 instalments. Besides, it was also fairly admitted in the counter affidavit that when the above mentioned two impugned orders have been passed in pursuant to the letter No.34187/WS5/2002-2, dated 20.12.2000 issued by the Secretary to Government, no notice is required to be sent to the petitioner. On the above said basis, the learned counsel for the respondents has prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition by confirming the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 12. When the respondents have sought recovery from the petitioner of Rs.23,480/-recovering at the rate of Rs.390/- per month in 59 installments and Rs.470/- in the last and 60th instalment that has been paid to the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1988 including the annual increments for 16 years, it must be mentioned that after 16 years, without notice to the petitioner, the impugned order of recovery should not have been passed particularly, when the revision of pay was fixed on the basis of V Pay Commission followed by G.O.Ms.No.666 dated 27.6.1989, I could find that there was no misrepresentation at all made by the petitioner for revision of pay. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been issued with prior notice before passing the orders of refixing the Scale of pay and also recovering the excess amount. 13. Admittedly, in the present case, the prior notice has not been issued. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been issued with prior notice before passing the orders of refixing the Scale of pay and also recovering the excess amount. 13. Admittedly, in the present case, the prior notice has not been issued. As a result, the petitioner was not given any show cause notice for issuance of the order of re-fixation and the order of recovery. Hence, I am of the considered view that both the impugned orders passed by the respondents are in violation of principles of natural justice, resultantly, therefore, they have to be set aside. 14. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner was regularised in the post of Fitter Grade II on 1.1.1978 as per rules. On completion of 10 years of service he was given the benefit of Selection Grade scale of pay with effect from 28.3.1988. Thereafter, when V Pay Commission along with G.O.Ms.No.666 dated 27.6.1989, were brought in revising the Scale of Pay of the petitioner to Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.6.1988, the respondents cannot deprive the revision of higher scale of pay of the petitioner merely for the reason that the Department has not proportionately increased the Scale of Pay to the promotion post of Fitter Grade I. In fact, when revising the Scale of Pay to the post of Fitter Grade II, by taking into account the conferment of Selection Grade benefit to that post, the respondent Department ought to have preferably revised the Scale of Pay to the promotional post erroneously of Fitter Grade I. But, the respondent Department, without increasing the Scale of Pay to the promotional post, has restricted the revised scale of pay of the petitioner from 1200-30-1560-40-2040 to 1100-25-1150-30-1660. Therefore, this Court is not able to see any rational basis for snatching away the benefit already given to the petitioner in the Selection Grade Scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 for the reason that the respondent Department has not enhanced the scale of pay to the higher promotion post of Fitter Grade I. 15. Moreover, the lame reason assigned in the impugned order for recovery by stating that the so called excess salary given in the promotional post of Fitter Grade I does not carry higher scale of pay than the one applicable to the Fitter Grade II is wholly unfair. 16. Moreover, the lame reason assigned in the impugned order for recovery by stating that the so called excess salary given in the promotional post of Fitter Grade I does not carry higher scale of pay than the one applicable to the Fitter Grade II is wholly unfair. 16. Indeed, the person, who is in the post of Fitter Grade II having received higher scale of pay on completion of 10 years of service namely, the Selection Grade, cannot be legally deprived of that benefit, when he was promoted to the post of Fitter Grade I. Since the respondent department has not enhanced the scale of pay for the promotional post of Fitter Grade I, they are legally bound to revise the scale of pay for the promotional post of Fitter Grade I by taking into account the scale of pay given to the Selection Grade of Fitter Grade II. The respondents, without looking forward to enhance the salary for the promotional post of Fitter Grade I, unfortunately, restricted the salary given to the petitioner, such an exercise in my considered opinion, is wholly unjustified for, the petitioner's pay was fixed in the Selection Grade Scale at Rs.610-1075. Subsequently, his pay was fixed in the revised Selection Grade Scale at Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.6.1988. This is on completion of 10 years of qualifying service. While so, for the reason that the promotional post of Fitter Grade I is carrying the ordinary scale of pay of Rs.1100-1660, reducing the Selection Grade Scale of Fitter Grade II, is legally impermissible. If the respondents come to the conclusion that the scale of pay for Fitter Grade I Ordinary Grade Scale is lesser than the revised Selection Grade Scale of pay in the Fitter Grade II, they should increase the scale of pay in the promotional post, higher than the Selection Grade scale of pay for the post of Fitter Grade II. Instead of doing so, giving a reason in the impugned order for reducing the petitioner's salary on the ground that the promotional post of Fitter Grade II carrying the ordinary scale of pay of Rs.1100-1660 is nothing but promoting the petitioner to the promotional post by way of punishment. 17. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. 17. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. The respondent Department is directed to restore the pay fixation as existed prior to the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, Alandur, Chennai. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.26528 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.1680 of 2006 are closed.