Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Rule. Ms. E. Shailaja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service of notice of rule. 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the matters are finally heard. 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner declared before the Court that he is restricting the petition only for the purpose of past recovery and he is not challenging the order for restoration of the promotion. Under the circumstances, the only question to be considered in the present petition is, whether the recovery could be effected of the salary which was already paid to the petitioner on account of the promotion granted earlier, may be irregular. 4. The relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the service as LDC (Lower Division Clerk) on 18th June, 1981 and thereafter as he had completed 17 years of service, he was granted promotion on 28th February, 2003 with effect from 18th June, 1998 as per opinion of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the DPC’). The petitioner continued to work over the said post and on 26th March, 2007 the said promotion came to be modified inasmuch as the DPC reviewed the case with effect from 1st June 2002 and it was found that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion. Consequently, the promotion orders granted to the petitioners were withdrawn and it was also ordered for effecting recovery for the difference of the amount actually paid to the petitioner and the amount which was payable to the petitioner without promotion. The petitioner approached before the Tribunal with the prayer for restoration of the promotion as well as for challenging the order for recovery of the amount of difference. The Tribunal, vide its decision dated 23rd July, 2010, dismissed the application. Under the circumstances, the present petitions before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. Dave for the petitioner and Ms. Shailaja for the respondent. 6. As such, on the aspect of recovery to be effected of the salary already paid on the basis of the promotion granted, the law is well settled. Under the circumstances, the present petitions before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. Dave for the petitioner and Ms. Shailaja for the respondent. 6. As such, on the aspect of recovery to be effected of the salary already paid on the basis of the promotion granted, the law is well settled. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.H. Reddy and Others vs. N.T.R.D. and Others, reported in 2002 (2) SLR 694 and the another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 578/2000 decided on 4th April 2001. We may also record that subsequently in the case of M.M. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2003 (1) GLH 697, this Court (Coram : Jayant Patel, J. one of us) had an occasion to consider the same question and after considering the above referred decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, the view reiterated is that the employee who had been in receipt of higher amount on account of erroneous fixation of the pay-scale by the authority should not be asked to repay the excess pay drawn. Same situation would apply even in respect of the promotion erroneously granted. Further, it is not the case where the promotion came to be granted on account of any fraud or misrepresentation or any misdeed which can be attributed to the concerned employee – petitioner herein. Merely because the DCP has subsequently reviewed the decision of promotion with retrospective effect and thereafter the promotion is withdrawn, the same cannot be a justifiable ground to effect the recovery of the amount which was already paid to the petitioner while he worked on the promoted post. No further discussion may be required on the said aspect since the position of law is settled. It appears that the Tribunal was more guided by the merits of the matter as to whether the promotion has been rightly withdrawn or not. It has not concentrated on the question as to whether even after the withdrawal of the promotion is maintained, whether recovery of the difference of the salary can stand in law or not. 7. It appears that the Tribunal was more guided by the merits of the matter as to whether the promotion has been rightly withdrawn or not. It has not concentrated on the question as to whether even after the withdrawal of the promotion is maintained, whether recovery of the difference of the salary can stand in law or not. 7. In view of the above, we find that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the petition to the extent of quashing and setting aside the recovery even after the order of withdrawal of the promotion was maintained. Hence, the recovery by the impugned order as sought to be effected is quashed and set-aside. 8. It is also made clear that the order for withdrawal of the promotion or for cancellation of the promotion is not interfered with. The judgment of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 9. The petitions are allowed accordingly. No order as to cost. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P