ORDER : 1. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 20-21.11.2000 as at Annexure-E to the petition under which Government directed that granting of emoluments to the petitioners in the pay scale of 950/- was illegal and that therefore, there would be recovery of the over-payments. 2. The petitioners were all engaged on daily basis service by respondent no. 1 Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (the board for short) way back in the year 1980. After 240 days of actual service, the board decided to grant them wages, at the minimum of scale plus Dearness Allowances proportionately for the number of days actually worked during the month. By an order dated 10.6.1992, the Board noted that these workers have been working for more than 240 days during every year right from 1985. They were therefore, granted the benefit of salary on the basis of minimum scale of 750 plus Dearness Allowances for the number of days actually worked during the month. Subsequently, by a further order dated 20.5.1998, the board decided to grant them wages on the same basis, however, in the minimum of pay scale of 950/-. 3. The Government however, passed the impugned order dated 20-21.11.2000 in which it was noted that the Government has decided to grant pay scale of 950/- to the skilled workers who are SSC passed. However, the board has not passed any resolution adopting such decision of the Government. Action of granting pay in the scale of 950 to the petitioner was therefore, impermissible, and therefore, overpayment be recovered. 4. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are SSC passed. Learned advocate Shri Ajmera for the petitioners under instructions stated that subsequently, all the petitioners were brought on the work charge establishment and they have been granted benefits of revised pay scale pursuant to 5th and 6th pay commission recommendations. He further pointed out that under the impugned order, the Government has insisted on recovery of overpayment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, short question now surviving is with respect to the recovery of alleged overpayment. For the brief reasons recorded here-in-after, I am not inclined to allow the respondents to recover such salary difference. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, short question now surviving is with respect to the recovery of alleged overpayment. For the brief reasons recorded here-in-after, I am not inclined to allow the respondents to recover such salary difference. Firstly, the board had itself adopted the Government decision of granting higher pay scale of 950/- to skilled workers who are SSC passed, granting such benefits to the petitioner. Secondly, the direction for reduction in payment and recovery of overpayment of salary has been passed without hearing the petitioners at all and thus the decision is completely opposed to the principles of natural justice. At such a distant point of time, I do not find it justified to order recovery of salary from the work charge employees in Class-IV level to surrender voluntarily amount paid by the board nearly 20 years back. 6. In the result, impugned order dated 20-21.11.2000, to the extent of providing recovery of past salary is quashed. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.