ORDER Honble Ms. Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Retd.) Chairman: - The applicant appointed as Junior Engineer on August 12, 1965 was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1995. He was to retire on December 31, 2002. The respondents without any notice to the applicant had re-fixed the pay in the year 2002. In this way the impugned order Annexure P-1 vide which his pay had been re-fixed and recovery of over payment had been made, has been challenged. The applicant, therefore, prays that after quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1, respondents may be ordered to calculate the retrial dues of the applicant on the basis of pay drawn by him on March 1, 2002 at the rate of Rs.13,500/-. 2. The respondents while justifying the impugned order have averred that the fixation of the pay subject to verification by the Audit and Recovery shall be made as per Audit and Head Office clarification made at any time in future. The Audit Officer during the year 2001-02 while verifying the fixation of the applicant had pointed out that it had been wrongly fixed. The Audit report in this record is Annexure R-1. Accordingly, pay of the applicant had been re-fixed. 3. We have heard Sh. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 4. Admittedly, the pay of the applicant had been re-fixed vide order Annexure P-1 without issuing any prior notice to him. In a way he has been taken by surprise on account of the issuance of the impugned order vide which not only his pay has been re-fixed but recovery of over-payment has also been orders. The respondents have taken this step only a few months before retirement of the applicant. It is well settled that where a person has been receiving in a bona fide manner and without any misrepresentation on his part of the recovery of overpayment cannot be ordered without issuing any notice. It was only during the audit, an objection was raised by the audit party that the pay had not been rightly fixed. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the case is covered by the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 999/1999 Naresh Kumar and others v. State of H.P. and another, decided on March 10, 2005. 6. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the case is covered by the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 999/1999 Naresh Kumar and others v. State of H.P. and another, decided on March 10, 2005. 6. In K.L. Santha v. Union of India and others (Ernakulam), 2004(2) SLJ (Calcutta) 23, amount was recovered without show cause notice as by mistake two increments were given instead of one. The said mistake was not detected for 8 years and it was observed that decided case law does not permit recovery of over payment made due to no mistake of the employee. In Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, 1994(2) SCC 521 Higher pay scale was erroneously given to the petitioners since 1973 and pay scale was reduced in 1984. It was, therefore, held that, since the petitioners received higher pay scale due to no fault of theirs it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. 7. Above being the position, the impugned order Annexure P-1 having been passed without knowledge of the applicant without affording an opportunity of personal hearing are liable to be set aside to the limited extent i.e. over payment already made be not recovered. As regards fixation of pay of the applicant, the respondents/competent authority will be at liberty to pass necessary orders only after issuing show cause notice or giving him personal hearing. -