ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.79264 T3(4), dated 08.12.2004 of the first respondent and to quash the same and also to direct the respondents to continue to pay the petitioner in the scale of pay and allowances as he is now drawing, without any deduction. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as School Assistant (B.T. Assistant) in the third respondent's school on 13.07.1989 and after serving as School Assistant for nearly eight years, he was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant on 28.02.1997 and continued in the same post. He was awarded Secondary Grade Assistant teacher pay scale and apart from pay scale, he was also granted other increments and allowances. According to the petitioner, he underwent Child Psychology Training from 02.05.2003. By the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.08.1997, the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Assistant was approved and by the proceedings dated 24.07.1998, the first respondent also directed the concerned authorities to grant regular increments and allowances. Pursuant to the said proceedings dated 24.07.1998, the petitioner was awarded periodical increments as entitled for the regular Government servant. 3. While things stood thus, by the proceedings dated 11.01.2005, the second respondent has communicated the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.12.2004, wherein it has been stated that in the light of G.O.Ms.No.155, dated 03.10.2002, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as regular Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher with effect from the date of completion of Child Psychology i.e., from 01.06.2003 onwards. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 4. I heard Mr. K. Thennan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M.E. Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the third respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that reduction of pay passed against the petitioner by the first respondent is without giving any show cause notice or without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and thus, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside. No representation on behalf of the third respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that reduction of pay passed against the petitioner by the first respondent is without giving any show cause notice or without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and thus, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside. He would submit that the decision arrived at by the first respondent to reduce the pay and increment based on the Child Psychology Training after many years of service is wholly capricious, arbitrary, whimsical and against the rule of law as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for salary before he underwent the Child Psychology Training. Only under the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.155, dated 03.10.2002, the petitioner was went for that training and accordingly, he underwent. She would submit that the petitioner becomes fully qualified to hold the post only from the date of completion of training. Therefore, his pay was re-fixed from the date on which he had completed the training. 7. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had not been heard before passing the impugned proceedings and on this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a decision in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana & and others, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, has held as under: "5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. 9. Reduction of pay and recovery of pay, if any, without hearing the petitioner is illegal. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. 9. Reduction of pay and recovery of pay, if any, without hearing the petitioner is illegal. In W.P.No.31727 of 2006, dated 05.11.2007 (N. Kannabiran v. Accountant General Officer and another), the learned Single Judge of this Court has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 . 10. In the Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “11.Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that the scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same.” 11. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "35. Any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice save and except certain contingencies of cases, would be a nullity.” 12. The aforesaid decisions are squarely apply to the case on hand. Thus, this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. 13. No prejudice need be proved by enforcing the fundamental rights. Violation of fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of natural justice renders the act of nullity. The purpose of the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice. 14. 13. No prejudice need be proved by enforcing the fundamental rights. Violation of fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of natural justice renders the act of nullity. The purpose of the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice. 14. In a decision in Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur and others vs. L. N. Kashri and others, reported in A.I.R. 1974 SC 1889, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “The appellants, having fixed the scale and confirmed the respondents, could not reduce the scale without giving any opportunity to the respondents to be heard. Further more, the respondents on confirmation became entitled to rights to the post and to the scale of pay fixed by the Board." The said decision is applicable in all fours to the case on hand. 15. It is pertinent to point out that in the case on hand, in the special circumstances, the petitioner was awarded all the regular increments and allowances from the date of appointment and the same was evident from the proceedings of the respondent authorities referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The respondent authorities, having fixed the scale of pay, could not reduce the scale without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Further, reduction of pay and recovery of pay, if any, without hearing the petitioner are illegal. 16. Nothing has been produced to show that on the misrepresentation of the petitioner, the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him. But in the case on hand, by wrong construction made by the principal, for which the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, there is no justification in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.79264 T3(4), dated 08.12.2004 of the first respondent will stand quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.