JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Even in second call, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. 2. From the cause list, it appears that the petition is filed by a senior citizen and therefore, it is required to be heard in priority. Despite this fact, learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are not present. The petitioner is also not present. Learned AGP for the respondent State is present. 3. Therefore, the Court is constrained to decide the petition in absence of learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent No. 1. 4. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "(13)(c) be pleased to quash the order of refixation of pa Rs. 5150/- instead of Rs. 5300/- as illegal and unjust and (d) be pleased to order the total amount recovered worth Rs. 1,31,388.41 from the petitioner as illegal recovery and be pleased to pass an order directing the refund of the same with interest @ 12% p.m. and; (e) be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of consequential retiral benefits payable to the petitioner within one month from the final date of the order of the Hon'ble Court." 5. So far as factual background is concerned, the petitioner has averred and asserted that he joined the service as Octroi Clerk with the respondent Nagarpalika in 1967. 6. The petitioner has alleged that somewhere in 1990, the petitioner had filed petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4747 of 1990 with request for direction to the respondent Nagarpalika to implement roster system. 7. According to the petitioner, somewhere in February 1994, the District Collector passed order and directed the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Octroi Inspector reserved for candidate from Scheduled Caste. 8. The petitioner has also claimed that somewhere in March 1994, the order of promotion promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Octroi Inspector in pay scale of Rs. 1400-1600 was passed and therefore, the petitioner had withdrawn the petition in May 1994. 9. In addition to the said details, the petitioner has claimed that the Nagarpalika had accepted and implemented recommendations of 5th Pay Commission and the scale attached to the post of Senior Octroi Inspector was placed in grade of Rs. 5000-8000. 10. According to the petitioner, he attained age for superannuation on 31.8.2005 and accordingly, he retired from service on superannuation. In addition to the said details, the petitioner has claimed that the Nagarpalika had accepted and implemented recommendations of 5th Pay Commission and the scale attached to the post of Senior Octroi Inspector was placed in grade of Rs. 5000-8000. 10. According to the petitioner, he attained age for superannuation on 31.8.2005 and accordingly, he retired from service on superannuation. 11. It appears that subsequently, the competent authority considered the case of the petitioner for pension and the authority passed order directing the re-fixation of the petitioner's pension in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and also directed that sum of Rs. 1,31,888.41 be recovered from the petitioner. 12. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said direction and preferred present petition. 13. As mentioned above, at the time of final hearing of the petition, neither side is present. 14. Therefore, any submissions with regard to the petitioner's claim or respondent's defence are not made and the Court has considered the matter in light of the material available on record. 15. From the record, it has emerged that the Chief Officer of respondent Municipality has filed an affidavit dated 14.3.2017. In the said affidavit, the respondent Municipality has averred and stated that: "5. I say and submit that thereafter, during the course of his employment, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Sr. Octroi Inspector vide order dated 28.3.1994 issued by the Municipality in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- as approved by the Government after acceptance of recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission and his pay was fixed at Rs. 1,560/-. 6. I say and submit that subsequently, by way of order dated 19.5.1999 issued by the respondent No. 2, the pay-scale of petitioner was revised as approved by the Government after acceptance of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission in respect of employees of Municipality, on scale-to-scale basis and the pay-scale of petitioner was thus fixed at Rs. 4500-7000. 7. I say and submit that on 31.8.2005, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. I say and submit that thereafter, his pension papers were submitted to the office of the Collector, Banaskantha on 23.12.2005 for approval, determination and release of the pension amount and other retirement benefits. 8. I say that on forwarding such papers, the respondent No. 3 raised various queries vide letter dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure-F). I say and submit that thereafter, his pension papers were submitted to the office of the Collector, Banaskantha on 23.12.2005 for approval, determination and release of the pension amount and other retirement benefits. 8. I say that on forwarding such papers, the respondent No. 3 raised various queries vide letter dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure-F). I say that in response thereto, the Municipality addressed a reply dated 14.2.2006 to the office of the respondent No. 3. 9. I say and submit that thereafter, on 8.3.2006, the office of the respondent No. 3 raised further queries/objections and returned the pension papers to the Municipality for due verification by ordering that the same shall only be considered once the excess amount paid to the petitioner has been recovered. 10. I say and submit that pursuant to the above, the Municipality was directed to carry out revision of pay fixation of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was found that the pay of the petitioner had been fixed at Rs. 5,300/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996, whereas however, the petitioner was entitled to pay fixation of Rs. 5,150/- and thus the pay fixation was ordered to be revised accordingly vide order dated 18.5.2006. I say and submit that these facts were intimated by the Municipality to the respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 20.5.2006 (Annexure-'I' Colly) and the service book of the petitioner along with revised proposal was submitted to the respondent No. 3 for verification. I say that accordingly, the petitioner was also intimated regarding the same vide communication dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure-'G' Colly). 11. I say and submit that thereafter, pursuant to the above, the Municipality issued notices dated 14.7.2006 and 19.8.2006 (Annexure-'J' Colly) upon the petitioner, demanding a recovery of Rs. 35,980/- and Rs. 89,558/- respectively as being the excess amount paid to the petitioner as per the revised pay fixation determined by the Municipality. I further say and submit that instead of objecting to or challenging such notices, the petitioner paid the said amounts to the Municipality on 17.7.2006 and 24.11.2006 respectively, without raising any objection." 16. From the said reply affidavit, it comes out that the competent authority passed the order of revising the pay scale and the order to recover the amount without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 17. From the said reply affidavit, it comes out that the competent authority passed the order of revising the pay scale and the order to recover the amount without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 17. Therefore, in present case it is not necessary to enter into other controversy or dispute raised in this petition, i.e. with regard to the applicable pay scale and/or with regard to the issue as to whether re-fixation in the pay scale is in accordance with the applicable pay scale or not. 18. In light of the facts of this case, present petition can be decided in light of primary and fundamental contention viz. violation of principles of natural justice/denial of opportunity of hearing. 19. The claim that the order directing the recovery of Rs. 1,31,888.41 and/or re-fixation of salary came to be passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said order cannot be sustained on the said limited ground and the said order and direction deserve to be set aside on ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 20. Therefore, following order is passed. 21. The impugned order and direction by the respondent Municipality is set aside on above mentioned limited ground, i.e. on ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 22. It is, however, clarified that it will be open to the respondent Municipality to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, for applying appropriate pay scale to the petitioner (i.e. for re-fixation of the petitioner's pay scale and/or pension) and to pass appropriate fresh order, however, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 23. It is clarified that in view of the fact that impugned order is set aside on limited ground viz. violation of principles of natural justice, the Court has not entered into merits of the dispute/controversy and/or impugned order and the Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the order/ground for the order. It is further clarified that if the competent authority does not accept the petitioner's application/representation and passes an order against the petitioner and if any order for recovery of any amount is proposed to be passed, then in that event the respondent will abide by and follow the directions by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ] and the authority shall pass afresh reasoned order. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is disposed of. The petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.