Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order of recovery issued by respondent No. 5, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Road Construction Department, Ranchi. The petitioner has retired from service on 31.5.2000. He was being paid his provisional pension, gratuity, and leave encashment. Subsequently, the Accountant General, Bihar, issued a direction to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from his pensionary benefits. Prayer of the petitioner is also for fixation of pension in the revised scale. Petitioners salary alongwith other Electrician grade II of the P.W.D, was fixed in the revised scale with effect from 1.3.1986. After petitioners retirement from service, Accountant General Bihar raised objection that wrongly revised scale was given to the petitioner alongwith electricians of Irrigation Department for which he is not entitled. The Department did not agree with the order passed by the Accountant General. Even then the Accountant General has fixed the pension of the petitioner in the lower scale and also directed for recovery of the amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. On the basis of the direction of the Accountant General the recovery order has been issued by the department. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Accountant General stating that benefits of pay anomaly of higher pay scale (Rs. 680-Rs. 985) had been wrongly fixed from 1.3.1986 which was not admissible in the case of the petitioner, as such, pension case of the petitioner was returned to the department concerned seeking clarification and adjustment of over payment. 3. Further it has been stated that on two occasions pension case of the petitioner was returned to the department. Third time again it was sent by the Executive Engineer (Mechanical Division, Department of Road Construction) stating that in the absence of any order relating to removal of pay anomaly applicable to a cadre under the Public Works Department, pay fixation has been done on the basis of parity. The petitioner was rightly given the benefit of scale with effect from 1.3.1986. Learned counsel for the Accountant General further submitted that the Govt. of Bihar gave higher scale of pay with effect from 1.3.1986 only to the electricians of the department of Irrigation. No such decision is taken extending benefit of higher scale of pay to the electricians of Public Works Department. Learned counsel for the Accountant General further submitted that the Govt. of Bihar gave higher scale of pay with effect from 1.3.1986 only to the electricians of the department of Irrigation. No such decision is taken extending benefit of higher scale of pay to the electricians of Public Works Department. Unless the Government decides in favour of the employees working in different department of equivalent post to grant higher scale, the benefit cannot be extended to the employees of other department. Since the clarification given by the department contained in letter dated 6.10.2001 was not satisfactory, the Accountant General authorised pension and commutation pension to the petitioner on the basis of admissible lower scale. Excess salary paid to the petitioner has been adjusted with the provisional death-cum-retiral gratuity given to the petitioner and the treasury officer was requested to adjust Rs.16,968/- from the death-cum-gratuity amount of the petitioner. 4. In reply to the counter-affidavit the petitioner has stated that the Accountant General has authorised the payment of pension and gratuity as well as commutation of pension in the lower scale and has also directed recovery of the amount ignoring all legal and admissible rules and laws. The Accountant General has ignored the rules provided in the Bihar Service Code. If two employees are working on the same post in two different departments of the State, they will have to be given the same scale of pay considering the principle of equal pay for equal work. It has also completely been overlooked by the Accountant General that initially Irrigation was the parent department which was subsequently bifurcated in lrrigation and Public Works Department. Services of electricians working in parent department i.e. Irrigation Department were transferred to the Public Works Department. The electricians working in the lrrigation Department as well as Public Works Department are on the same posts, discharging same responsibilities and the nature of their working is also same. ln the circumstances, there may not be disparity in the pay scale. 5. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Accountant General, I find that unless there is any specific reason for granting two different scale to the employees working on the same post in two different departments, who are discharging same nature of job. They cannot be discriminated by allowing two different pay scales. 5. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Accountant General, I find that unless there is any specific reason for granting two different scale to the employees working on the same post in two different departments, who are discharging same nature of job. They cannot be discriminated by allowing two different pay scales. There cannot be disparity in their scale when originally the electricians working in the Public Works Department as well as Irrigation Department were working in the same parent department i.e. Irrigation Department. Under the Bihar Service Code also there is no such provision that there can be any disparity in the pay scale in the case of two employees working on the same post in two different departments. Since the petitioner was given higher scale in order to remove the pay anomaly by the department, benefit cannot be taken away by the Accountant General on this presumption that there was no such order at the Government level in the case of an employee like the petitioner working in the Public Works Department. The petitioner has retired from his service and after his retirement the order cannot be passed cancelling higher scale given to him without any notice in violation of rule of natural justice. Accordingly, the order dated 7/2001 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2 contained in Memo no. PEN-3-485 is hereby quashed. Respondent no. 1, The Accountant General, Bihar, is directed to issue authority slip in favour of the petitioner fixing his pension in the promotional scale within a period of one month from the date of presentation/communication of a copy of this order and also to issue fresh pension, gratuity as well as commuted value of pension order in favour of the petitioner in the revised scale. 6. So far recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary is concerned, by now it is well settled by a series of decisions of this High Court as well as the Apex Court that any amount paid to an employee as increment or salary in the higher scale during his service period, rightly or wrongly, that cannot be recovered from his pensionary benefits unless it is proved that there is misrepresentation on the part of the employee concerned. As such, the order dated 5.1.2002 passed by respondent no. As such, the order dated 5.1.2002 passed by respondent no. 5, so far recovery part is concerned, is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 4, Treasury Officer, is directed to refund the amount recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. The amount should be paid to the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of presentation/communication of a copy of this order. 7. With this observation/direction this application is allowed.