JUDGMENT M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition filed challenging the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 3 were upheld. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that he has been promoted to a supernumerary post, pursuant to the directions given by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.2061 of 1990. The said order of the Tribunal had become final and was given effect to. Therefore, under those circumstances, an unilateral order passed by the 1st respondent, based upon an audit objection and without affording any opportunity to the appellant, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that as per the Rules, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought for by him. The learned single Judge has gone into the merits and decided the writ petition and therefore, no interference is required. 4. Admittedly, the appellant has not been given any opportunity to put forth his case. Even though the orders impugned are inter-departmental communications, the appellant was consequently affected, as there was reduction in his pension. The said action on the part of respondents 1 to 3 has got civil consequences. Therefore, the appellant has got every right to challenge the said proceedings, but for which there would not have been any reduction in the pension. 5. The appellant has not been heard and the orders impugned have been passed based upon the audit objection. Therefore, considering the said facts, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge requires to be interfered with. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is hereby set aside, and, consequently, the orders impugned in the writ petition, are also set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice to the appellant, indicating the proposal to reduce the pension that was paid to the appellant, prior to the passing of the impugned order. The 1st respondent is also directed to issue a copy of the audit objection, based upon which, the order impugned has been passed. After receipt of the same, the appellant is given a further period of four weeks' to give a suitable reply, putting forth his contentions. The 1st respondent is also directed to issue a copy of the audit objection, based upon which, the order impugned has been passed. After receipt of the same, the appellant is given a further period of four weeks' to give a suitable reply, putting forth his contentions. The 1st respondent is directed to issue the said show cause notice within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when the appellant gives his response, i.e. within the period stipulated above, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate final orders, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The Writ Appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.