Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1 and P2 to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from 5-2-1996 till the date of retirement and also for other consequential relief. Petitioner retired from service of the Kerala Agricultural University as Programmer on 31-7-02. 2. Petitioner was sanctioned higher grade with effect from 5-10-1995 after completion of 22 years of service and later she was promoted as Programmer on 5-12-1996. On promotion of the petitioner from the post of Junior Programmer after granting the higher grade to the post of Programmer, the pay of the petitioner was fixed taking the basic pay drawn in the time bound higher grade scale. Actually, her pay in the promoted post of Programmer should have been fixed on the basic pay notionally at lower post. While fixing the pay of the petitioner in the promoted post taking the basic pay as drawn in the time bound higher scale the University had obtained an undertaking from the petitioner that in case it is found that the pay is wrongly fixed and the petitioner was paid excess pay, the same could be refunded from the terminal benefits. When the retirement papers of the petitioner was submitted to the local fund audit, the discrepancy in the fixation of pay was noticed. Accordingly Ext.P1 was issued by the local fund audit. On the basis of Ext.P1 University verified the claim and was satisfied that there was wrong fixation of pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Programmer. University then issued Ext.P2 proceedings fixing the retirement benefits of the petitioner. It was directed that the excess amount drawn by the petitioner should be recovered from DCRG. 3. Learned single Judge however, allowed the writ petition noticing that Ext.P1 audit objection was dated 16-10-2002, while the petitioner retired from service on 31-7-2002. Learned single Judge also noticed that during the period when the petitioner was in service there was no audit objection and Ext.P1 audit objection was issued without notice to the petitioner. Under such circumstances learned single Judge took the view that it is not open to the University to recover the amount by withholding the DCRG. Learned single Judge directed to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner with 8% interest from 1-8-2003. 4. Under such circumstances learned single Judge took the view that it is not open to the University to recover the amount by withholding the DCRG. Learned single Judge directed to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner with 8% interest from 1-8-2003. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned single Judge to be interfered by us in this appeal. Learned counsel submitted, before her retirement, liability was not quantified or fixed with notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel also made reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Indian Railway Sas Staff Association, (1995 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 600) and submitted that even though excess payment is made erroneously the same shall not be recovered from the retired employees. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand contended that the petitioner had given an undertaking that if any excess amount is paid it should be recovered from the retirement benefits. Annexure-I is the undertaking given by the petitioner and also the declaration under Rule 117-A by which petitioner has agreed to recover any excess amount from her pension if any liability that is outstanding against her. Counsel also submitted that there is no question of determining liability since the payment was made erroneously. 6. Indisputedly on promotion of the petitioner as Programmer her pay was to be fixed based on basic pay notionally arrived at the lower post (non-grade scale). But erroneously her pay was fixed taking the basic pay drawn in the time bound higher grade scale. Consequently there was an excess payment on account of this erroneous fixation and consequent pay revision fixed for the period from 5-12-96 till date of retirement and the same has to be recovered. Audit has specifically stated the reasons in Ext.P1. Under such circumstance University has issued Ext.P2 order dated 20-11-2002. Mistake in the pay fixation was occurred when the petitioner was in service, details of which has been specifically stated in Ext.P1 remarks by the audit. Therefore the question of fixing any liability as such does not arise. Petitioner says that the mistake was committed by the office of the University. Needless to say, it is the duty of the University to recover the excess amount due to wrong fixation made. 7. Therefore the question of fixing any liability as such does not arise. Petitioner says that the mistake was committed by the office of the University. Needless to say, it is the duty of the University to recover the excess amount due to wrong fixation made. 7. A Bench of this Court has held in Santhakumari vs. State of Kerala, (2005 (4) KLT 649), that if any amount was paid erroneously it was the duty of the officer as well as the beneficiary of that payment to point out that erroneous payment since both of them are equally bound by the statutory provision, otherwise public interest would suffer. Later another Bench also has taken the same view in State of Kerala v. Saiful Islam, (2006 (1) KLT 619). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to out knowledge a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleyamma Varghese v. Secretary, General Education Department, (I.L.R 2007 (3) Ker. 105) and submitted that the State shall not resort to recovery proceedings after long duration of time. That was a case where the proceedings were initiated after a period of 17 years. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case the apex court expressed opinion that the amount already paid shall not be recovered. In our view the above mentioned case is clearly distinguishable on facts. Under such circumstance we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge.