The impugned order, passed without affording opportunity of hearing, was not sustainable, and the State authorities can correct the mistake in fixation of salary of an employee only after affording opportunity of hearing to the employee.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sanjay Srivastava and Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla on behalf of the petitioner and standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) AWADH Nath Tripathi, the petitioner, who was a Gram Panchyat Adhikari, retired from government service on 31. 1. 1999. The petitioner applied for payment of pension is accordance with the Rules applicable. The respondents, however, passed an order dated 17. 2. 2000 whereby it was directed that the petitioner was wrongly granted promotional scale with effect from 1. 7. 1991 and, therefore, the fixation of salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 under order dated 23. 3. 1993 was being cancelled and re-fixation of salary of the petitioner was being directed. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 17. 2. 2000 the respondents issued an order for recover} of a sum of Rs. 71,312. 00 from the petitioner and withheld the payment of pension to the petitioner. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 17. 2. 2000. In Para 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that the order dated 17. 2. 2000 has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing in manifest violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 3 ) THIS Court while entertaining the said writ petition on 15. 3. 2000 passed an interim order whereby the order dated 17. 2. 2000 was stayed and the respondents were directed to release the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner within the time specified.

( 4 ) ALONG with the counter-affidavit the order dated 13. 6. 2000 has been enclosed on the basis whereof the pension of the petitioner has been released. However, it has been specified in the said order that the excess amount paid to the petitioner as pension and gratuity shall be recovered in accordance with the judgment of the present writ petition.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation made by the petitioner in respect of fixation of salary under order dated 23. 3. 1993 and therefore, in accordance with the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2002) 10 SCC 99, Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Vijay bahadur and Anr. , as also the judgment reported in 1995 (1) SCC 18, Sahib Ram v. State of haryana and Ors. , and also in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1996 AWC 947, Bindeshwri Sahai Srivastava v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, lucknow and Ors. , the impugned order dated 17. 2. 2000 which has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing, is vitiated as it results in evil civil consequences and as such is a nullity being in violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 6 ) ON behalf of respondents it is stated that it is always open to the respondent-authorities to correct the mistake in fixation of salary of an employee and in such circumstances this Court may not interfere with the order passed on 17. 2. 2000.

( 7 ) FROM the facts as are born out from the record it is an undisputed position that the salary of the petitioner was re-fixed in selection grade with effect from 1. 7. 1991 under order dated 23. 3. 1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2000. Neither it is mentioned in the impugned order nor it is otherwise alleged by the respondents that the said fixation of salary of the petitioner was the outcome of any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid it cannot be disputed that fixation of salary of the petitioner as aforesaid was an act of the respondents themselves and the petitioner had not misrepresented before the authorities concerned. The honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2002 (10) SCC 99, Bihar Electricity Board and Anr. v. Vijay Bahadur and Anr. (supra) re-affirmed the judgment of the Honble Supreme court reported in 1995 (1) SCC 18, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) wherein in para 5 it has been held as follows :

"admittedly