ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri M. Krupakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri S. Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2 nd Respondent in issuing Proceedings Rc. No. Zone VI/ SGP/SGP/9/2021 dated 8.9.2022 recovering two annul grade increments for 14 years from 2007 to 2022 duly regulating the pay scale and not sanctioning the special grade increments 6 years and 12 years under automatic advancement scheme and the action of the 3 rd respondent not sanctioning the annual grade increment which is due w.e.f. 1.10.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release and pay annual grade increment which is due w.e.f. 1.10.2022 and 6 years and 12 years special grade increment under Automatic Advancement Scheme and to pass...”. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Art Teacher. The 2 nd respondent had issued appointment order, dated 26.06.1997 to the petitioner on contract basis. The then Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 10.08.2007 for regularization of services of the contract teachers working in APSWREI Society and accordingly the services of the petitioner were regularized and petitioner was drawing regular increment for 14 years. As per G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 15.04.2015 the petitioner is entitled to Special Grade increment for 6 years and 12 years. 3 (i). The petitioner’s further case is that though he completed 15 years of service, petitioner had not been granted SPP IA and SPP IB 6 years and 12 years special grade increment under automatic advancement scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 15.4.2015. The respondent No.2 to the shock of the petitioner had issued proceedings dated 08.09.2022 to the petitioner informing that petitioner’s regularization had taken place w.e.f. 29.12.2009, but petitioner was sanctioned increments with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., 01.10.2007 and therefore excess amount paid to the petitioner had to be recovered from the petitioner. The respondent No.2 to the shock of the petitioner had issued proceedings dated 08.09.2022 to the petitioner informing that petitioner’s regularization had taken place w.e.f. 29.12.2009, but petitioner was sanctioned increments with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., 01.10.2007 and therefore excess amount paid to the petitioner had to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation dated 6.10.2022 to the 2 nd respondent. The 3 rd respondent failed to grant annual grade increments which are due w.e.f. 1.10.2022 contrary to law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD A. The impugned Memo vide Rc.No.Zone6/SGP/SGP/9/ 2021, dated 08.09.2022 issued to the petitioner is extracted hereunder “In the reference cited the Principal TSWRS/JC Narayankhed, Sangareddy District has submitted the proposal of Sri N. Yellaiah, Art Teacher for sanction of sanction of SGP & SPP-1 (A) scale on completion of 12 years incremental service. The proposal is verified and found that the individual was appointed as (Art) on 01.10.2007. His services were regularized w.e.f. 29.12.2009 i.e. the date of acquiring of qualifications to hold the post of TGT. He is eligible for sanction of annual grade increment on completion of required service to earn the increment from the date of acquisition of qualifications, in terms of Rule 10(g) of State and subordinate service rules 1996. But, he was sanctioned increments from the date of initial appointment, which found to be incorrect and his pay needs to be regulated and excess paid amount to be recovered. Therefore, the Principal, TSWRS/JC, Narayankhed, Sangareddy District is hereby directed to inform the same to Sri N. Yellaiah, Art Teacher and regularize his pay and recover excess amount paid from the individual and submit the proposal for Automatic Advancement scheme”. B. This Court vide its order dated 23.01.2023 passed interim order in favour of the petitioner, observing as under: “Notice Before Admission. Post after four (4) weeks. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondent No.1 and Sri S.Bhupal Reddy for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents issued present impugned orders to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner under automatic advancement scheme and requested to pass interim orders. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondent No.1 and Sri S.Bhupal Reddy for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents issued present impugned orders to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner under automatic advancement scheme and requested to pass interim orders. Prima facie, this Court is considered the view that in impugned orders no reference with regard to notice to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. ln view of the same, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings Rc.No.Zone Vl/ SGP/ SGP/9/2021 dated 08.09.2022 issued by the respondent No.2. List on 20.02.2023”. C. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent and the relevant para Nos.12 to 19, are extracted hereunder “ 12. Whereas in case of the Petitioner, at the time of regular appointment, the qualifications of the Petitioner is BFA (Painting) II class with 54.63% from JNTU and TTC (Painting), Caste BC-D and the Petitioner is not having qualification of Intermediate with 1 st class. 13. Hence, he was appointed as unqualified teacher with a condition that he should necessarily acquire the requisite educational qualification i.e., Intermediate with 1st class within a period of (4) years from 01.10.2007 vide Procgs.No. ZV/23807/2007/Art/UQ/2007, dated 12.11.2007. 14 . Further, respectfully submit that the services of the individual was erroneously regularized in the cadre of Art Teacher w.e.f. 1.10.2007 from the date of unqualified services vide this office Procgs. No.Z-VI/23807/2007(ART), Dated:14.07.2012. The same has cancelled vide Procgs No.Z-VI/23807/CT/2007, Date:03.08.2016. 15. The 54 th Board of Governors resolved on 29.12.2009 with regard to Art Teachers that "those who have possessed BEA degree after SSC directly considered as eligible", Accordingly, the Petitioner was appointed as qualified teacher w.e.f. 29.12.2009 and the services of the Petitioner were regularized w.e.f 29.12.2009 vide this office procgs No.Z-VI/23807/CT/2007, dated 03.08.2016 in the cadre of Art Teacher. 16. In reply to Paras 6 to 16 of the affidavit, It is respectfully submitted that, as per Rule 10(g) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, no person appointed under sub rule 10 (a) shall be eligible to an increment in the time scale of pay applicable to him/her, unless he/she possess the tests or acquires the qualifications. 16. In reply to Paras 6 to 16 of the affidavit, It is respectfully submitted that, as per Rule 10(g) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, no person appointed under sub rule 10 (a) shall be eligible to an increment in the time scale of pay applicable to him/her, unless he/she possess the tests or acquires the qualifications. And the increment will be released only after the completion of one year from the date of acquiring the qualification/regularization. 17. Whereas in this case, the Petitioner was appointed as qualified teacher with effect from 29.12.2009; accordingly, the services of the Petitioner were regularized with effect from 29.12.2009 i.e as per Board of Governors meeting held on 29.12.2009. Hence it is established rule that the Petitioner is entitled to Annual Grade Increment (AGI) only after the completion of one year from the date of regularization in the cadre. 18. The Principal, TSWRS/JC Narayankhed, Sangareddy District has submitted proposals of the Petitioner for sanction of SGP scale (6) years and SPP-1A(12) years scale vide Lr.No.A1/128/Estt/2022, dated 21.02.2022. After examination of the proposals of the Petitioner, the Principal, TSWRS/JC Narayankhed was informed that, Sri N. Yellaiah, Art Teacher was appointed (Art) on 01.10.2007 as unqualified. His services were regularized w.e.f. 29.12.2009. Hence, he is eligible for sanction of annual grade increment on completion of required service to earn the increment from the date of acquisition of qualifications, in terms of Rule 10(g) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. But, he was sanctioned increments from the date of initial appointment, which found to be incorrect and his pay needs to be regulated and excess paid amount to be recovered and further the Principal was directed to regularize his pay and recover excess amount paid from the individual and submit the proposal for Automatic Advancement scheme vide this office Memo No.Zone6/SGP/SGP/9/2021, dated 08.09.2022. 19. Further, the Petitioner has submitted representation dated 06.10.2022 for sanction of SGP(6) years and SPP- IA(12) years scale in the cadre of Art teacher, the request of the individual was examined and the Principal, TSWRS/JC Narayankhed, Sangareddy District was directed to submit action taken report on the instructions issued Memo No. Zone6/SGP/SGP/9/2021, dated 08.09.2022 and the petitioner was informed that the instructions issued vide Memo dated 08.09.2022 is holds good vide this office memo No. Zone6/SGP/SGP/9/2021, dated 08.12.2022”. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to issuance of impugned Memo dated 08.09.2022 of the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 vide the said proceedings impugned in the present w rit petition directed the 3 rd respondent to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner unilaterally and arbitrarily in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Admittedly as borne on record the petitioner had not been put on any notice prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 by the 2 nd respondent herein and the impugned orders had been passed, to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner under Automatic Advancement Scheme, unilaterally in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The said fact is not disputed even by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who however, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent in particular para Nos. 12 to 19 ( referred to and extracted above) contends that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein, since excess amounts had been sanctioned to the petitioner from the date of petitioner’s initial appointment w.e.f. 01.10.2007 and therefore, the impugned order, dated 08.09.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent warrants no interference. 8. Law is well settled that when an action is proposed to be taken, which is likely to adversely affect the interest of a party he or she is entitled to a notice. A) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 in “UMA NATH PANDEY & OTEHRS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER” at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : “Para 10: 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. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram parte rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram parte rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. 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 “Manga 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 principle was thus stated: (ER p.420). “Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’ (says God), ‘where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I command thee that thou shouldest not eat”. Since then the principle has been chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. 9. Taking into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The contents of the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent which admittedly, as borne on record, is without issuing notice to the petitioner and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, (d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent in particular para Nos. 12 to 19 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The interim order dated 23.01.2023 passed in the present writ petition which is in force as on date, (referred to and extracted above), (f) The observations in the Apex Court Judgment referred to and extracted above, The writ petition is allowed. The impugned Memo vide Rc.No. Zone6/SGP/SGP/9/2021, dated 08.09.2022 is set aside. It is how ever observed that it is open to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner if the respondents intend to do so in accordance to law by issuing notice to the petitioner by providing reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in conformity with principles of natural justice. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.