JUDGMENT : 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery order no.2916/E-2 dated 30.09.2014, order no.2723/E-3/PF dated 12.09.2014 and order no.2724/CB-3 dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao/opposite party no.5. 2. Facts in brief of the present case as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner on 15.07.1979 was engaged as daily wager on the post of Supervisor. In pursuance to the order dated 10.02.1995 passed in Writ Petition No.468 (SS) of 1995, on 28.10.1995, Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Unnao had passed an order in respect of payment of salary of minimum of the pay scale to the post of Junior Engineer/Supervisor. 3. On 17.02.2006 The Government has issued an order to regularize the services of the diploma holder daily wage employee/work charge employees working as Supervisor/Junior Engineer (Mechanical). 4. Accordingly, on 07.03.2006, the Committee was constituted to examine the record of the Junior Engineer/Supervisor for regularization of their services and on 08.05.2006, a tentative seniority list was issued inviting objections. 5. After receiving the objections, final seniority list was issued. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.1 at Column no.5 and on 06.09.2006, the services of the petitioner along with others were regularized on the post of Junior Engineer/Supervisor. 6. By order dated 21.12.2012, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao had sanctioned the pay scale to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) from 15.07.1979. 7. On 09.07.2014 the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao has issued a letter stating therein that the petitioner is to retire from his services on 31.07.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation so he should be given his complete charge of the post of Assistant Engineer. 8. On 31.07.2014 the petitioner retired from his services, however, his post retiral dues I.e. Group Insurance and amount of leave encasement have not been paid to him. So, on 25.08.2014, he made a representation to the authorities concerned for payment of the same and again on 04.09.2014, sent reminder but no heed paid. 9. 8. On 31.07.2014 the petitioner retired from his services, however, his post retiral dues I.e. Group Insurance and amount of leave encasement have not been paid to him. So, on 25.08.2014, he made a representation to the authorities concerned for payment of the same and again on 04.09.2014, sent reminder but no heed paid. 9. On 12.09.2014 the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao wrote a letter to the Superintendent Engineer, Circle Unnao, Public Works Department, Unnao for making recovery of an amount of Rs.7,39,606/- on the ground that as the pay scale of the petitioner has been wrongly fixed, so the said amount paid to him be recovered. 10. On 30.09.2014, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao has passed an order for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,85,483/- after retirement from the post retiral dues of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized and his salary for the post of Junior Engineer was also fixed in accordance with Rules as well as government orders. The salary which has been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the petitioner after his retirement because there is no element of fraud or misrepresentation on his part in regard to payment of salary to him, so the impugned order is contrary to law as well as to the principles of natural justice because no opportunity has been given to the petitioner by the appointing authority prior to passing of the impugned order. 12. He further submits that there is no provision for recovery of any amount from the G.P.F., Leave encasement and Group Insurance amount, as such, the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties are contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 13. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the impugned orders submits that the petitioner is Diploma Holder Mechanical Engineer. He was engaged as daily wager and was assigned duty of work as Mistri on 15.07.1979 and thereafter, he had worked as Supervisor. He was paid his wages on the basis of Muster Roll. The qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineer was not prescribed for engaging either o the post of Mistri or Supervisor on Muster Roll. 14. He was engaged as daily wager and was assigned duty of work as Mistri on 15.07.1979 and thereafter, he had worked as Supervisor. He was paid his wages on the basis of Muster Roll. The qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineer was not prescribed for engaging either o the post of Mistri or Supervisor on Muster Roll. 14. And in pursuance to the orders dated 30.08.1993 passed in Writ Petition No.27367 of 1991 and dated 10.02.1995 passed in Writ Petition No.468 of 1995, the petitioner was granted Rs.1400/- per month which was lowest pay of the Junior Engineer. Further, as per direction given by this Court to consider the case of the Diploma Holder daily wages/work charge employees, working on different posts treating them as ad hoc Junior Engineer for their regularization, information regarding the petitioner was sent to Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, U.P. and the case of the petitioner was considered for his regularization on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical), his services were regularized vide order dated 06.07.2006. 15. From bare perusal of the same, it is apparent that the regularization date would be assuming of duty by the employee concerned. After regularization of his services, by order dated 08.09.2006, the petitioner was posted in Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.2826 (SS) of 2013 for grant of time scale, additional increment and the personal promotional scale after calculating the services rendered by him as daily wager/muster roll. However, the pay scale of the petitioner has incorrectly been fixed vide order dated 21.11.2012, so in this regard, the Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Public Works Department, Lucknow wrote a letter dated 23.06.2014 to the Superintending Engineer, Unnao Circle, Public Works Department, Unnao for calculating the amounts paid to the petitioner on account of incorrect fixation of pay vide office memorandum dated 21.11.2012 and the same may be recovered. 17. After receiving the letter dated 23.06.2014, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.06.2014 as to why the amount paid to him towards salary on the basis of irregularity fixation may not be recovered to which he submitted his reply on 07.07.2014. 18. In the meantime, petitioner retired from his services on 31.07.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. 18. In the meantime, petitioner retired from his services on 31.07.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao has passed an order for recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner from his entitlement on 30.09.2014. So, the impugned orders dated 30.09.2014 and 12.09.2014 are perfectly valid and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 20. So far as the matter in regard to recovery of excess amount paid to a person from his post retiral dues is concerned, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) AIR 2015 SC 696 has held as under :- “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 21. In the instant matter, from the perusal of the record, it transpires that the amount which is to be recovered from the petitioner, by means of the impugned order, has not been paid from the GPF amount, payable to him after his retirement. In the instant matter, from the perusal of the record, it transpires that the amount which is to be recovered from the petitioner, by means of the impugned order, has not been paid from the GPF amount, payable to him after his retirement. The said amount cannot be recovered from him as there is no fraud or misrepresentation on his part in regard to payment of salary to him. 22. So far as the second question regarding application of principles of natural justice is concerned, it cannot be doubted that whenever an employer takes a view, or from the record, finds, that certain amount has been paid to an employee, in excess to what he was not entitled, before issuing an order of recovery of the same, he must give an opportunity to the employee concerned to show cause, whether such amount should be recovered from him or not. If this opportunity is given to an employee, he can always show that what was paid to him, he was entitled therefor, and, there is neither any excess payment, nor any payment for which he was not entitled. An order passed directly without giving any show cause notice or opportunity to the employee, in my view, would suffer the vice of non observance of principles of natural justice. In a case where there is a dispute as to whether the employee has been paid an amount rightly or not, before passing any order, having civil consequences, the employer must afford an opportunity to the employee, else, such an order would be in violation of principles of natural justice. 23. Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. In the words of Megarry J it is “justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and technical”. The principles of natural justice or fundamental rules of procedure for administrative action are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code. They are better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined. 24. Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified cannone. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. They are better known than described and easier proclaimed than defined. 24. Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified cannone. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 25. The expressions "natural justice" and "Legal justice" do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defense. 26. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. There principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed. against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". the classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principles was thus stated: “Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defense. 'Adam'(says God), 'where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof, I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat ?” 27. Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. 28. It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression “natural justice”. Though highly attractive and potential, it is a vague and ambiguous concept and, having been criticised as “sadly lacking in precision, has been consigned more than once to the lumber-room. It is a confused and unwarranted concept and encroaches on the field of ethics. Though eminent judges have at times used the phrase “the principles of natural justice”, even now the concept differs widely in countries usually described as civilised. 29. It is true that the concept of natural justice is not very clear and therefore, it is not possible to define it; yet the principles of natural justice are accepted and enforced. In reply to the aforesaid criticism against natural justice, Lord Reid in the historical decision of Ridge V. Baldwin (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL) observed: “In Modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist……” 30. Further, Natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural justice are “basic values” which a man has cherished throughout the ages. Further, Natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural justice are “basic values” which a man has cherished throughout the ages. They are embedded in our constitutional framework and their pristine glory and primacy cannot be allowed to be submerged by exigencies of particular situations or cases. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness. 31. The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more-but nothing less. 32. As Lord Denning in the case of Kandaa v. Govt. of Malaya, 1962 AC 322 observed that “if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused person to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him; and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.” 33. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Bishambhar Nath Kohli v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 65 held that “in revision proceedings, the Custodian General accepted new evidence produced by one party, but no opportunity was given to the other side to meet with the same. The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated.” 34. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others 1994 (6) SCC 154 , is similar circumstances, has held that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated.” 34. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others 1994 (6) SCC 154 , is similar circumstances, has held that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. In para 3 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under: "The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause ...Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him hearing in the matter." 35. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order no.2916/E-2 dated 30.09.2014, order no.2723/E-3/PF dated 12.09.2014 and order no.2724/CB-3 dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Unnao/opposite party no.5 are quashed.