JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Agriculture Extension Inspector in the Irrigation Department on 18.8.1970 in the scale of 120-220. On the abolition of that cadre, he was retrenched on 2.2.1976 but on 3.2.1976 he was absorbed in the Agriculture Department as Tubewell Operator. However, from 17.5.1980 he was again allowed to work as Assistant Agriculture Extension Inspector in view of Government Order dated 10.12.1973. He was granted selection grade w.e.f. 1.7.1985 and promotional pay scale w.e.f. 1.7.1991 by the competent authority and retired on 30.3.2004 from the pay scale 6650-7400 drawing a salary of Rs. 9858/-. Accordingly, the pension and other papers relating to other retiral dues were sent to the office of Additional Director of Treasury and Pension for issuing the payment orders. 3. However, it was returned refixing his salary on a lower scale and the last drawn salary as Rs. 6200/- and asking the department to do likewise and to adjust Rs. 40,000/- as excess payment from the gratuity payable to the petitioner vide its letter dated 31.8.2004. The Department, vide its order dated 28.4.2005, justified the pay scales already granted and requested that no adjustment be made, thus forcing the petitioner to file the present petition to release all the retiral dues in accordance with the earlier pay fixation and accordingly release pension on the basis of last pay actually drawn. 4. It is urged that the respondents could not have refixed his scale after decades and that too without any notice or opportunity especially when there is no allegation that the petitioner was in any way responsible for his pay fixation. 5. It is apparent from the record that the core of the dispute is in regard to the pay fixation of the petitioner made in 1980 when he was again given the post of Assistant Agriculture Extension Inspector in view of Government order dated 10.12.1973 and his pay was fixed under Government order dated 30.8.1975. The Treasury, after about 24 years when the petitioner had retired is seeking to rectify the alleged error. There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit why this inordinate delay. The Treasury, after about 24 years when the petitioner had retired is seeking to rectify the alleged error. There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit why this inordinate delay. However, learned Standing Counsel contends that in view of the Government order dated 5.12.2001, the pension authority is authorised to examine the illegality or mistake in pay fixation for any period if it affects the Exchequer. The said Government order is on record and it is only a clarification to earlier Government orders dated 4.9.2001 and 16.7.2001 by which the Treasury could examine the correctness of any fixation of a period upto 36 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant. By the Government order dated 10.12.1973 it has been clarified that if any infirmity in pay scale is found for any period of 10 months prior to the retirement, the Treasury can correct it, but with regard to infirmity of more than that, the matter should be referred to the Head of Department of the retiring employee and proceed after they clarify it. In the present case, the departmental head had justified the pay fixation vide its letter dated 28.4.2005 and therefore the Treasury was bound by it. In any event, the fixation in the present case was of 1980 and therefore it was beyond the pale of the three Government orders. Assuming that the pay fixation was incorrect but after ages it could not be corrected behind the back of the petitioner and cause him financial loss. 6. Even otherwise, a perusal of the Government order dated 10.12.1973 shows that the pay of even a retrenched employee was saved as personal pay which he was last drawing before retrenchment. 7. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to deduct any amount from the gratuity of the petitioner and if deducted, the same should refunded within a month of the submission of a certified copy of this judgment. They are further directed to pay all retiral dues, including pension, to the petitioner taking into account the actual salary last drawn by the petitioner within the same time. In case of failure, the petitioner would be entitled to 6% per annum Interest from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. 8. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. ————