Judgment :- (This Writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.5469 of 2001 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay DCRG computation of pension and proper quantum of pension with interest to the petitioner forthwith within a short period.) In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay DCRG, computation of pension and to pay proper quantum of pension with interest within a short period. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows, (a) Petitioner was appointed as Warden/Secondary Grade Assistant in the second respondent department in the year 1962. He was promoted as Primary School Headmaster from 3.1.1967 and worked in various schools till 3.7.1979. Petitioner served as Tamil Pandit from 4.7.1979 to 5.11.1979 and was appointed as Middle School Headmaster from 5.11.1979. He retired on 31.10.1998 as Middle School Headmaster. (b) According to the petitioner, as per the Government Letter No.46818/Pay Cell-2/90-1, dated 20.11.1990, petitioner was given Special Grade in the post of Middle School Headmaster with effect from 3.1.1987 by order of the Special Tahsildar dated 5.9.1991. In the year 1998, an order was passed revising petitioner's pay along with recovery on the ground that fixation made earlier on 5.9.1991 was not in order. Petitioner challenged the said order in O.A.No.8624 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was allowed on 9.4.1999 with liberty to proceed afresh, if necessary. (c) In the affidavit petitioner states that the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare by his proceedings dated 28.7.1997 issued instructions to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer to correct the wrong entry with regard to petitioner's service in the service book i.e., with effect from 3.1.1967 to 28.8.1968 that the petitioner had worked as Primary School Headmaster and not as Secondary Grade Teacher. Based on the wrong entry made in the service register, the recovery order was passed. The Special Tahsildar by his order dated 18.12.2000 corrected the wrong entries and thereafter the Director issued directions to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer to send proper proposals for fixation of correct pension, DCRG and computation of pension. Based on the wrong entry made in the service register, the recovery order was passed. The Special Tahsildar by his order dated 18.12.2000 corrected the wrong entries and thereafter the Director issued directions to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer to send proper proposals for fixation of correct pension, DCRG and computation of pension. (d) According to the petitioner, even though he retired on 31.10.1998, in view of the recovery order passed on 11.11.1998, his DCRG and computation of pension were withheld, apart from fixing his pension at Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.5,650/-. Petitioner further stated in the affidavit that the recovery order was passed based on the wrong entry in the service register. (e) Further case of the petitioner is that he served in the department for nearly 36 years with clean record of service and his retirement benefits are not settled in spite of his unblemished service. According to the petitioner, selection grade and special grades given to him are correct and it is in accordance with the rules and the Government letter referred to above. However, the first respondent unnecessarily raised audit objections and the said audit objections were also cleared by an elaborate communication of the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ambattur, Chennai-53, in Rc.613/2000, dated ...-3-2001. Hence the petitioner is praying for the above referred direction. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent wherein it is stated that the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Ambattur forwarded pension proposal on 22.1.2001 with last pay drawn as Rs.11,300/- in the scale of pay of Rs.9100-275-14050. The proposals were returned on 15.2.2001 by raising certain queries. The said queries were answered by the Special Tahsildar, Ambattur, stating that the special grade in the Middle School Headmaster post to the petitioner was awarded by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer on 5.8.1991 and stepping up of his pay on par with his junior was as per the order dated 30.10.1995 of the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer. However, the first respondent in the counter affidavit stated that in spite of the said reply given by the Special Tahsildar, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was fixed by order dated 3.5.2001 reckoning the last pay drawn as Rs.8,000/- i.e, minimum time scale of selection grade for Middle School Headmaster. 4. However, the first respondent in the counter affidavit stated that in spite of the said reply given by the Special Tahsildar, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was fixed by order dated 3.5.2001 reckoning the last pay drawn as Rs.8,000/- i.e, minimum time scale of selection grade for Middle School Headmaster. 4. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the objection raised was clearly explained by the Special Tahsildar in his proceedings Rc.613/2000, dated ..-3-2001, wherein it is stated that the fixation of pay as on 1.6.1988 in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-14000 is applicable to the Special Grade Headmasters of Welfare Middle Schools and hence the petitioner was given the said special pay with effect from 3.1.1987 as per the order of the District Welfare Officer dated 5.8.1991 and also based on the instructions contained in Government letter No.46816 (Pay Cell-2) dated 20.11.1990. The Special Tahsildar also enclosed a copy of the order elevating petitioner's pay to special grade Middle School Headmaster based on the Government letter referred above. It is further stated in the counter that the delay in submission of pension papers was due to the objection raised with regard to fixation of pay. The Special Tahsildar found that the mistake in noting the post as Secondary Grade Assistant instead of Headmaster, led to the objection and consequently the objection was dropped and the recovery of alleged excess amount paid was also dropped. The Special Tahsildar also enclosed all the relevant orders to sustain the claim of the petitioner and requested the drop the objections. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the award of selection grade and special grade to the petitioner was within the purview of the Departmental Officer of the State Government, however it is the duty of the Accountant General acting as the Accounts Officer to see that the pay fixed and paid to the Government servant is in accordance with the rules. 5. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. The point in issue is whether the audit objection raised by the Accountant General was duly clarified by the Special Tahsildar or not. 6. As stated above, the report of the Special Tahsildar referred to above is self-explanatory and he has requested to drop the audit objection. The point in issue is whether the audit objection raised by the Accountant General was duly clarified by the Special Tahsildar or not. 6. As stated above, the report of the Special Tahsildar referred to above is self-explanatory and he has requested to drop the audit objection. The Government order and the orders passed by the Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer and the fact of stepping up of the pay scale of the petitioner to that of his junior are all mentioned in the said report. 7. Even according to the first respondent fixation of pay is the prerogative of the department. In this case, the department has stated that there is no wrong in petitioner's pay fixation and there was mistake only in noting the post as Secondary Grade Assistant instead of Headmaster, which led to the audit objection. Then the objection as well as the recovery of alleged excess amount were dropped. The contention of the Accountant General made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit is totally unsustainable since the Accountant General has no jurisdiction to raise further objection after the objection is clarified by the department and specifically stated that the fixation was done properly in consonance with the Government orders. When the department specifically states that there is no error, the Accountant General is bound to accept the same and release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in spite of the recovery proceedings having been dropped the amount which was originally ordered to be recovered was withheld by the first respondent under the guise of further recovery and the same is in violation of the decision reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that salary of the Government Servant paid though on erroneous fixation, cannot be recovered even if the Government Servant is not entitled to get the said fixation. Here, in this case, the authority competent to sanction the pay has already clarified that the petitioner is entitled to fixation of his pay in the special grade and also dropped recovery and audit objections. 9. Therefore I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the first respondent is totally uncalled for and the petitioner is entitled to get the withheld amount of DCRG. 9. Therefore I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the first respondent is totally uncalled for and the petitioner is entitled to get the withheld amount of DCRG. Petitioner is also entitled to get his pension revised in accordance with the rules. The amount of DCRG withheld by the first respondent and the arrears of pension on the basis of last drawn pay shall be worked out and the same shall be paid by the first respondent with interest at bank rate from March, 2001, that is, from the date of dropping of audit objections. The arrears payable to the petitioner shall be paid by the first respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.