Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. in this writ petition the petitioner, who superannuated from service on 31.7.96 while working as Motor Mechanic Driver, is aggrieved by order dated 28th July, 1998, contained in Annexure-9, whereby and whereunder promotion granted to him long back in the year, 1984 w.e.f. 28.4.84, has been cancelled after his retirement and an order for recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn by him has been passed, consequently the order giving the details of the recovery to be made has been passed on 18.6.99, contained in Annexure-7. His further grievance is that 10% of his pension, full amount of gratuity and the amount of leave salary have not been paid to him till date, even after lapse of almost four years. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the provision of Selection Grade was made w.e.f. 1.4.81 and according to the said provision an employee is entitled to get Junior Selection Grade Promotion firstly and according to the letter no. 145 dated 9.2.85 a heavy driver is entitled to get Senior Selection Grade after completion of three years in Junior Selection Grade post. According to the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit the petitioner was granted Senior Selection Grade promotion contrary to the said provision. 4. However, it is not the case of the Respondents that the said promotion was granted to the petitioner on account of misrepresentation or commission of fraud by him. In view of the law settled by a decision reported in 1995 Supplementary Vol. (I) S.C.C. 18 no such recovery of said alleged excess amount is permissible until there is any finding that the said amount was drawn on account of any misrepresentation or commission of fraud by the employee concerned. 5. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders, contained in Annexures-9 and 7, in so far as they relate to the recovery part, cannot be sustained and the same are, thus quashed. 6. However, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Prasad vs. State of Bihar and ors. 5. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders, contained in Annexures-9 and 7, in so far as they relate to the recovery part, cannot be sustained and the same are, thus quashed. 6. However, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Prasad vs. State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 96 the pensionary benefit of the petitioner shall be fixed pursuant to the order, contained in Annexure-9 and necessary sanction order must be issued with respect to the remaining pensionary dues within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order, accordingly.