Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent, dated 23.01.2004, whereby the petitioner's salary was re-fixed from Rs.1,450/- to Rs.1,400/-without putting the petitioner on notice and further recovery of Rs.14,832/- from the petitioner in pursuance of such pay revision. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was given appointed as Selection Grade Workshop Inspector, with Rs.1,500/-as his scale of pay with effect from 14.10.1988. However, such pay was revised to Rs.1,450/-through the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.04.1998 and consequently, a sum of Rs.12,986/- was also recovered from the petitioner, as an excess payment made to him. The petitioner did not challenge the said order and accepted the same. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to have Selection Grade on completion of 10 years as on 14.10.1988 and rightly such Selection Grade was also granted to the petitioner by the first respondent. Thereafter, on completion of further 10 years i.e., on 14.10.1998, the petitioner is entitled to get the Special Grade. However, without granting such Special Grade to the petitioner and disbursing the monetary benefit accordingly, the present impugned order came to be passed without even giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, thereby, a further revision of salary of the petitioner was made from Rs.1,450/- to Rs.1,400/-. It is further ordered to recover a sum of Rs.14,832/- from the petitioner. This proceedings of the first respondent is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit and in which, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance Department, dated 28.03.1980 and consequently, the pay of Rs.1,500/-fixed was not correct. Therefore, the pay revision was rightly made as per the impugned proceedings. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner himself had made a representation on 19.06.2000 seeking for Special Grade fixation and thereafter only, the present impugned order came to be passed. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent shows that the same had been passed unilaterally without issuing any notice to the petitioner or calling for his objection for revising the scale of pay. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent shows that the same had been passed unilaterally without issuing any notice to the petitioner or calling for his objection for revising the scale of pay. It is seen that the petitioner's salary was already revised once in the year 1998, through the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.04.1998 from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,450/-. A recovery was also effected for a sum of Rs.12,986/-. It appears that the petitioner had accepted the said revision of salary and paid the excess amount also. If that be the position, further revision as has been done by the first respondent by way of the impugned order once again without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cannot be accepted, as it certainly violates the principles of natural justice. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get only revised salary or not can be decided by the first respondent only after hearing the petitioner and considering the objections raised by him against such revision. Without doing so, the order cannot be passed unilaterally by the first respondent. It further appears that the revision of pay was made only based on the communication received from the second respondent to the first respondent. Thus, it is further clear that the revision was not made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but only based on the communication received from the second respondent. Therefore, without going into the other merits and the rival contention of the respective parties, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing fresh orders, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.