JUDGEMENT Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by a retired Class III employee of the Bihar Government for refund of a sum of Rs. 9,725/-, and Rs. 1918/-, which have been deducted from his post-retirement benefits. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in the Bihar Government on 1.2.1972, as Roller Khalasi. He was promoted to the post of Correspondence Clerk, a class III post, with effect from 23.6.1995. He was given annual increment with effect from 23.6.1996, and admissible to a Class III employee who passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination as per the relevant circulars of the Bihar Government. The petitioner had thus enjoyed the last annual increment on 31.6.2001. The next increment could not be paid to him because, before completion of one full year, he superannuated with effect from 31.1.2002. At the time of calculation of the post-retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner, the authorities realised that he has been given the annual increment with/effect from 23.6.1996, even though he had not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination which he continued to enjoy till his superannuation resulting in deduction-of Rs. 9,725/- and Rs. 1918/-, totalling Rs. 11,643/-, being the excess amount paid to him from 23.6.1996 to 31.1.2002. The petitioner, therefore, prays that, in the fats and circumstances of the case, the amount may be refunded to him. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner was given annual increment with effect from 23.6.1996, which he enjoyed year after year till his superannuation and admissible to a person who has passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The petitioner had admittedly not passed the said examination. The petitioner was, therefore, paid the amount unauthorisedly. 4. It appears to us that no fraud, misrepresentation, or the like is attributable to the petitioner in getting the benefit. It appears to be a bona-fide act on the part of the authorities. The petitioner had admittedly not passed the said examination. The petitioner was, therefore, paid the amount unauthorisedly. 4. It appears to us that no fraud, misrepresentation, or the like is attributable to the petitioner in getting the benefit. It appears to be a bona-fide act on the part of the authorities. This Court has held on a number of occasions that such money benefits paid to an employee while in service which was really not admissible to him, should normally not be recovered from him after he has entered the evening of his life in a situation where no fraud, misrepresentation, or the like is attributable to him. Law is equally well-settled that it can be recovered at any stage if the order giving him the money benefit was contingent on certain circumstances. Reference may be made to the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Binod Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) P.L.J.R. 398 . 5. In the result this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 30.9.2002 (Annexure-6) is hereby quashed to the extent it relates to recovery of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 9,725/- and Rs. 1918/-, totalling Rs. 11,643/-. Let the same be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of recovery till the date of refund. The monthly pension shall be fixed as per the entitlement of the petitioner.