JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order to quash and set aside the Office Order No. 340 of 2004 dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-D), letter dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure - F) and letter dated 03.01.2005 (Annexure-G) and to issue direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.56,742/- with 12% interest and to direct the respondents to re-fix the amount of pension and gratuity and to make payment of arrears of pension amount and gratuity from 01.07.2004 with 12% interest. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer in the State service vide order dated 21.09.1972, and thereafter he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer vide order dated 22.01.1996. The petitioner's pay was fixed in higher grade with effect from 01.06.1987 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 to 1640-2900. Thereafter, due to revision in pay scale of Additional Assistant Engineer, higher grade was given with effect from 01.04.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to 2000-3500. The Pay Verification Unit of Board fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 2375/- with effect from 01.04.1992. The Pay Verification Unit, Vadodara (Subordinate to Board Unit) fixed the pay at Rs. 2300/- with effect from 01.04.1992. The S.E. Project Circle, Vadodara, fixed the pay scale at Rs. 8550/- from 25.01.1996 on promoted post of Deputy Executive Engineer vide order dated 15.05.1998. Thereafter the S.E.P.H. Circle, Godhra, fixed the pay at Rs. 8000/- from 25.01.1996 vide order dated 01.07.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily retired from the service after putting in about 32 years of service on 30.06.2004. Thereafter, on 14.12.2004, the respondent No. 2 issued Office Order No. 340/2004 for recovery of excess payment made in the salary and allowances for the period from 01.04.1992 to 31.12.1995 and 25.01.1996 to 30.06.2004 due to fixation of pay. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the petitioner on 29.12.2004 to deposit the amount of Rs. 52,285/- being the amount of excess payment. Thereafter, another letter dated 03.01.2005 was written by the respondent No. 1 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 56,742/-. Accordingly, on the same day the petitioner deposited Rs. 56,742/- in the office of the respondent-Board along with letter and cheque. 52,285/- being the amount of excess payment. Thereafter, another letter dated 03.01.2005 was written by the respondent No. 1 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 56,742/-. Accordingly, on the same day the petitioner deposited Rs. 56,742/- in the office of the respondent-Board along with letter and cheque. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 on 08.03.2005 for giving advantage of stepping up in fixation of pay and for other claims. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 22265 of 2005 on 13.06.2005 challenging the inaction of the respondents. The said petition came to be disposed of by the this Court vide order dated 07.12.2005 by giving direction to respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision upon the representation of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Thereafter, on 21.02.2006 the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 for personally attending office of respondent No. 1 on 02.03.2006. The petitioner also submitted written submissions on 02.03.2006 in the office of respondent No. 1. The reminder was also sent by the petitioner on 16.06.2006 to the respondent No. 1 for compliance of Court's order. Thereafter, since the respondent No. 1 did not take any action, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition being Misc. Civil Application No. 2601 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 22265 of 2005 on 29.09.2006. The said petition was rejected on the grounds that contempt proceedings cannot be used as a leverage for implementation of any order or direction and the applicant may resort to any other remedy in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the Office Order No. 340 of 2004 dated 14.12.2004, letter dated 30.12.2004 and letter dated 03.01.2005, on the various grounds enumerated in the petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the petitioner submits that after disposal of the first petition, the respondent authorities were required to give reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any order, but the respondents have not provided any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order as well as the letters directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 56,742/-. Thakkar for the petitioner submits that after disposal of the first petition, the respondent authorities were required to give reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any order, but the respondents have not provided any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order as well as the letters directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 56,742/-. It is submitted that the said action of the respondents is in clear contravention of the principles of natural justice and on this count, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer since 01.01.1996 and he was promoted on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 25.01.1996. The petitioner's pay on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer was fixed as Rs. 7900/- on 01.01.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500. The pay scale of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer is Rs. 8000-275-13500. It is the case of the petitioner that according to the Government Resolution No. Pay/12264/463-CH, dated 05.01.1965, issued by the Finance Department, the initial pay of the petitioner in the time scale of higher post is to be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing pay in respect of the lower post by one increment, and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for fixation of pay at Rs. 8275/- (Rs. 7900/- + 200/- of increment or lower post Rs. 8100/- and next stage in higher post is Rs. 8275/-) on 25.01.1996. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is error on the part of respondent No. 2 in fixing pay at Rs. 8000/- on 25.01.1996. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement on 30.06.2004 from the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and since last more than 15 years the petitioner is deprived of from getting pension which was due and payable to the petitioner, since he has taken voluntary retirement on the basis of pay fixation which was erroneously done by the respondent-Board. It is further submitted that instead of passing an order to rectify the mistake, the respondent-Board sought recovery from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. It is further submitted that instead of passing an order to rectify the mistake, the respondent-Board sought recovery from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 56,742/- and the said amount has been recovered under the threat that if the petitioner will not deposit the said amount, the pension papers of the petitioner will not be processed and retiral benefits will be delayed. Therefore, the petitioner had no option but to accept the pension which was fixed at lower stage. It is further submitted that the petitioner is senior citizen and waiting for his legitimate dues in light of the pay fixation which was required to be made in light of the Government Resolution dated 05.01.1965 which was applicable in the case petitioner. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar while concluding his submissions, submits that the affidavit filed by the respondent-Board has not dealt with the Government Resolution dated 05.01.1965, issued by the Finance Department, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case. It is submitted that instead of referring to the said Resolution which is applicable in the instant case, the respondents have taken shelter under the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, which was passed by the Finance Department. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the relief as prayed for, and therefore, necessary directions may be issued upon the respondents while allowing the petition to make payment of arrears of pension amount and gratuity from 01.07.2004. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Baxi appearing for the respondent No. 1-Board while opposing the present petition has refereed to and relied upon some of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, and more particularly Para 8 of the affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to put-forward his case after disposal of the petition which was filed by him. It is further submitted that the petitioner's pay fixation is done in light of the Government Resolution of the Finance Department dated 16.08.1994, Para-3(23). It is further submitted that in light of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, Para-3 (23), the benefit of pay fixation is not available if the employee gets promotion after getting higher pay scale, and therefore, the fixation is required to be made under Rule 41(A)(1). It is submitted that the pay of the petitioner was fixed according to Bombay Civil Services Rule 41(C-1) in the scale of Rs. It is submitted that the pay of the petitioner was fixed according to Bombay Civil Services Rule 41(C-1) in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 on 25.01.1996 at the basic pay of Rs. 8000/- with a date of increment from 01.01.1997. The said action of the Board is therefore absolutely just and legal and the orders passed by the Board are in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules and there is no infirmity in the said orders and the present petition having no merits deserves to be dismissed. 6. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner preferred the Special Civil Application No. 22265 of 2005 challenging the inaction of the respondents. While disposing of the said petition the following order was passed by this Court (Coram : Mr. Jayant Patel, J) on 07.12.2005 : "1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the Office Order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-D) and the letter dated 30.12.2004 and 03.01.2005, whereby the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed and the petitioner was called upon to deposit the difference amount of Rs.56,742/-. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondents to refund the amount and to re-fix the amount of pension and gratuity with interest @ 12%. 2. Heard Mr. Thakker, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, after the communication, as the pension of the petitioner was not fixed and the petitioner was threatened with the communication of fastening the responsibility, the petitioner deposited the amount of difference and submitted that after the amount was deposited, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 08.03.2005 for stepping up in the pay-scale. 3. Mr. Thakker submitted that the deposit of the amount by the petitioner cannot be said to be voluntary since the order for re-fixation of the pay was in breach of the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that there is no decision communicated after the representation dated 08.03.2005 submitted by the petitioner. 4. Considering the above, it appears that it is an admitted position that after the representation is made by the petitioner dated 08.03.2005, no decision is communicated to the petitioner and even as per the petitioner, the earlier order was without giving opportunity of hearing. 5. 4. Considering the above, it appears that it is an admitted position that after the representation is made by the petitioner dated 08.03.2005, no decision is communicated to the petitioner and even as per the petitioner, the earlier order was without giving opportunity of hearing. 5. So far as the question of opportunity of hearing and directing the authority to refund the amount is concerned, in my view, the said question is not required to be decided at this stage since the petitioner has already deposited the amount. In any event, when the petitioner has made representation as per Annexure-H, until the decision is rendered on the said aspects, at this stage, the question raised by the petitioner cannot be finally concluded. 6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the respondent No. 1 shall take appropriate decision upon the representation of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the order of this Court. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly." 7. In view of the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities were directed to take decision upon the representation of the petitioner within stipulated time. The respondent authorities were also directed to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But, it appears that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the order of recovery of Rs. 56,742/-. Even otherwise the respondent-Board before passing any administrative order, and more particularly the order which is adverse to the petitioner, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In the instant case, on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the respondent authorities have failed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the adverse order demanding recovery of Rs. 56,742/-. Moreover, the respondent authorities have also failed to take into consideration the grounds which were pointed out by the petitioner in his representation pertaining to applicability of the Government Resolution No. Pay/12264/463-CH, dated 05.01.1965, issued by the Finance Department. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-Board, it appears that the respondent authorities have not dealt with the specific contention/ground raised by the petitioner about applicability of the Government Resolution dated 05.01.1965. The pay fixation was required to be made in light of the said Government Resolution. 8. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-Board, it appears that the respondent authorities have not dealt with the specific contention/ground raised by the petitioner about applicability of the Government Resolution dated 05.01.1965. The pay fixation was required to be made in light of the said Government Resolution. 8. In the instant case, the respondent authorities at one stage made pay fixation in terms of the aforesaid Government Resolution, but subsequently the said fixation was revised and reduced, and accordingly the petitioner was put in disadvantageous position in respect of pay as discussed hereinabove. The said order is passed without affording opportunity of being heard. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.12.2004, letter dated 30.12.2004 and letter dated 03.01.2005 are required to be quashed and set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.12.2004, letter dated 30.12.2004 and letter dated 03.01.2005 are quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 56,742/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, since the amount of Rs. 56,742/-has been wrongly recovered from the petitioner. Since the impugned order dated 14.12.2004, letter dated 30.12.2004 and letter dated 03.01.2005 are quashed and set aside, the pay of the petitioner is required to be re-fixed in the pay scale, which was originally fixed by the respondent authorities before the recovery of Rs. 56,742/-, and accordingly, corresponding effect of revision of pay scales are also required to be given as and when revision of pay is made effective in the State of Gujarat. After the pay scales are revised, the pension of the petitioner is ordered to be fixed considering average of last 10 months pay drawn by the petitioner. The respondent authorities shall also pay the differential gratuity amount and arrears of pension to the petitioner. The respondent authorities are directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and shall pay all the dues and arrears of retiral benefits including pension, gratuity etc. within a period of four weeks thereafter. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed