Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed praying to quash and set aside the communications dated 28th July 2009 and 10.03.2011 and to direct the respondents to decide and settle the pensionary claims of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.6700-10700 and to release the gratuity withheld by the respondents at the time of settlement of pensionary claims. 2. In the order passed by Accountant General dated 28th July, 2009, it is stated that the petitioner, who retired on 30.04.2009 from the office of Block Medical Officer, Chennai (District Udhampur) was promoted as Community Health Officer, by order dated 03.04.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 05.04.1997 and after two years he has been allowed the pay scale of Rs.6700-200-10700 w.e.f. 01.04.1999 by order dated 18.09.2003. The benefits of pay and allowances are required to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of relevant rules and orders of the Government. The scheme for promotion to the post of Community Health Officers as notified by Government Order dated 20.03.1997 does not provide for grant of pay scale of Rs.6700-10700 after completion of a period of two years of service in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The benefits allowed w.e.f. 01.04.1999 of pay scale of Rs.6700-200-10700 are therefore in contravention to the scheme notified by the Government. It is further stated that the irregularity was brought to the notice of Block Medical Officer, Chennai (District Udhampur) by order dated 06.05.2009 but no remedial measures have been taken. 3. It is a fact that the higher salary was fixed and paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and irregularity was brought to the notice of Block Medical Officer on 06.05.2009 i.e. after a period of 10 years based on which recovery was ordered to be made. 4. It is a well settled proposition of law that if higher salary is paid without any misrepresentation on the part of the employee, the amount paid shall not be recovered after a long number of years unless undertaking to that effect was obtained at the time of sanction. The said issue has already been considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 (State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih). In the said case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has set aside the recovery order. 5. The said issue has already been considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 (State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih). In the said case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has set aside the recovery order. 5. In the present case, before ordering recovery, apart from no suppression, no notice was given to the petitioner and straightway order of recovery was passed. Similarly, for re- fixation also, no notice was issued and therefore, the principle of natural justice is violated. Ordering recovery from the salary and reducing salary has got a civil consequence, therefore, the principal of natural justice is bound to be followed and the same is violated. On these two grounds, impugned order of recovery is quashed. Insofar as the re-fixation is concerned, it is open to the 2nd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner, calling for objections and after considering the objections, pass appropriate orders. If the re-fixation is required, the proceedings shall be initiated and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.