JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The petitioner after completion of requisite period of service on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service from 30th April, 2007. The petitioner's pension case was not finalised because of the objection raised by the Accounts Officer of the Pension Department of the Government of Rajasthan whereas the employer -Assistant Engineer concerned informed the department that petitioner has rightly been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1850/- and he has not been wrongly fixed in the said pay scale. The Assistant Engineer vide communication dated 13.8.2007 further informed that excess amount paid to the petitioner has already been recovered, but even after this communication, the GPO was issued after deducting amount of Rs. 53,959/- from the due amount of the petitioner on the above two counts. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's pay fixation was made by virtue of order passed by the competent authority and, therefore, the same can be cancelled by the said competent authority only and not by the Accountant of the Pension Department or by the Auditor. It is submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in getting pay fixation, which was granted to the petitioner by the employer by passing appropriate order decades ago and much before his retirement. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Goverdhan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 128 such deduction is not permissible. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the respondents have considered the audit objection and pointed out that petitioner was wrongly fixed in the salary and has been paid excess amount and, therefore, the amount was deducted from the total payment of the petitioner. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that competent authority passed the order in time for fixation of the petitioner's salary as well as re-fixation of the salary. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that competent authority passed the order in time for fixation of the petitioner's salary as well as re-fixation of the salary. The employer already informed that excess amount has already been recovered from the petitioner and in view of the above communications of the Assistant Engineer of the respondent- department dated 2nd June, 2007 and 13.8.2008 and in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Goverdhan Lal (supra), the deduction made by the respondents is absolutely illegal and therefore, the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 53,959/- to the petitioner as well as any consequential benefits which may be given with interest @ 6% per annum from the date when the amount became due. 6. The writ petition of the petitioner is allowed accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******