JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—List has been revised. None has appeared for the respondents. Heard Sri K.S. Ojha, Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 7.3.2006 in pursuance of the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by respondent No. 4. It has further been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to act in accordance with law and reaffirm prior pay scale of Rs. 9,700/- per month and pay the entire post retiral benefits in pursuance of the order dated 19.11.1997 with 15% interest to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Operator II in the year 1968 in Obra Thermal Power Plant Obra, district Sonbhadra and was regularized as permanent employee in Fuel Handling Division 1 Obra Thermal ‘A’ Power Station Obra, Sonbhadra on 15.5.1971. Thereafter he was promoted on the post of Operator I grade in the year 1981. His pay scale was reduced and refixed as Rs. 2,630/-. The petitioner retired from service on 29.2.2004 and at the time of retirement he was getting salary of Rs. 9700/- per month. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent-authorities have wrongly and illegally reduced and refixed the salary of the petitioner as Rs. 9,500/- in place of Rs. 9,700/- per month and accordingly computed all post retiral benefits on the basis of fixation of Rs. 9,500/-. The respondents have passed the pension order vide order dated 1-2.10.2004 by fixing pension as Rs. 4,679/- but they have started deducting Rs. 1,871/- from the monthly pension of the petitioner without paying the gratuity and Rashi Karan amount. 5. It is further alleged by the petitioner that he had made representation along with reminders on 11.3.2005, 20.5.2005 and 27.7.2005 in this regard to the authorities concerned but to no avail. Then petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58881 of 2005. 6. It is stated that this Court vide order dated 23.1.2006 directed the respondents to decide the aforesaid representation within a time bound frame and further directed the respondents to pay the admitted post retiral dues of the petitioner. 7. Then petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58881 of 2005. 6. It is stated that this Court vide order dated 23.1.2006 directed the respondents to decide the aforesaid representation within a time bound frame and further directed the respondents to pay the admitted post retiral dues of the petitioner. 7. It is further stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23.1.2006 respondent No. 4 rejected the representation of the petitioner without paying the admitted gratuity and Rashi Karan amount, hence this writ petition. 8. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents authorities had already fixed the pay of Rs. 9,700/- of the petitioner at the time of his retirement but subsequently they re fixed and modified the pay scale of the petitioner as Rs. 9,500/- inter alia that due to mistake of Accounts department increment was wrongly granted to the petitioner on 1.4.1984. 9. It is urged that the petitioner had been rightly granted increment by the Accounts department on 1.4.84 as such the impugned order dated 7.3.2006 is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to get the prior pay scale of Rs. 9,700/- 10. The petitioner is not at fault of alleged wrong fixation of his salary. In State of U.P. and others v. State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow and another, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 127 it has been held that pensionary benefits of an employee cannot be withheld after his retirement on the ground that promotional pay scale and selection grade was wrongly granted. There was nothing to show that he was instrumental in grant of such benefits. If any State officials have wrongly fixed the salary it is upon the State to fix responsibility upon such erring person but petitioner cannot be penalized for wrong act of others. In the aforesaid case of State of U.P. and others (supra) the High Court therefore, found that Tribunal was justified in directing payment of pensionary benefits. Refusing to interfere with Tribunal’s direction, High Court held that it was not fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. In the aforesaid case of State of U.P. and others (supra) the High Court therefore, found that Tribunal was justified in directing payment of pensionary benefits. Refusing to interfere with Tribunal’s direction, High Court held that it was not fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. For the reason that neither the petitioner is at fault nor was instrumental in fixation of his alleged wrong salary and in view of the decision in the case of State of U.P. and others v. State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Luckow and another, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 127 (supra) and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. No order as to costs. ————