Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the gratuity of the amount of Rs.1,33,803/-, which has been deducted by the respondents from retiral benefits payable to his deceased father. 3. Father of the petitioner was posted as Stenographer in Tube-well Division, Allahabad, who died on 31.01.2006. After his death a sum of Rs.1,33,803/- was deducted from the gratuity on the ground that he was wrongly granted selection grade and excess payment has been made. On 21.11.2006, respondent no. 4 passed an order to deduct the excess amount paid to the father of the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary from the post retiral benefits. Petitioner made various representations ventilating his grievances that recovery has wrongly been made from post retiral benefits. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondents have no authority to recover the amount already paid from the post retiral benefits, unless it is established that the said amount was received by the father of the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. 5. In reply, learned Standing Counsel referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has urged that after examining the service book of the father of the petitioner, it was found that he was wrongly granted selection grade, as such, the same was rectified and the excess amount paid to him has been recovered from his post retiral benefits. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Neither in the order directing deduction nor there is anything else on record of the counter affidavit to show that the alleged wrong fixation of pay of the father of the petitioner was on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his behalf. It is well settled that if any financial benefits like increment or revised pay scale has been provided to an employee by the employer, the amount received in lieu of such increment or revision in pay scale is not liable to be recovered unless it is established that the same was received by the employee on account of some fraud or misrepresentation on his part. 8. 8. In case of Nand Kishore Sharma and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1995 Supplement (3) Supreme Court Cases, 722, it has been held that amount already paid cannot be recovered. In said case Apex Court was considering the withdrawal of revised pay scale and recovery of arrears paid. The State of Bihar consequent to the report of the Pay Commission recommended revised pay scale for Plant Protection Supervisor which was accepted and the department enforcing the revised pay scale paid the arrears in lump sum in the year 1981. The State Government subsequently directed the recovery of excess payment. Apex Court held that amount already received cannot be recovered. 9. In State of Karnataka and another v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees and others, reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 302, the Apex Court while considering the entitlement of house rent allowances held that they were not entitled for the same but in that circumstances also the Apex Court held that “in such circumstances, since the employees had drawn the allowances on the basis of financial sanction of the competent authority that is Government and had incurred additional expenditure towards house rent, the employees should not be punished for no fault of theirs, hence there cannot be any recovery.” 10. Similar view has been taken in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 522, Union of India v. Sita Ram Deer, 1994 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1445, Nand Kishrore Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1996 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) 124, that if additional payment has been made to an employee for no fault of theirs, they should not be penalized for this. 11. In Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 1995 Supplement (1) Supreme Court Cases, 18 it has been held in paragraph 5 that the Principal in the said case has erred in granting relaxation of the educational qualification and has awarded revised pay scale. Since it was not made on any misrepresentation made by the petitioner, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. 12. Since it was not made on any misrepresentation made by the petitioner, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in case of State of U.P. and others v. State Public Services Tribunal, reported in (2004) 1 UPLBEC 127 has taken a view that where incumbent is not at all responsible for such wrong fixation, by no stretch of imagination direction can be issued for recovery of the amount. 13. In Harish Chand Srivastava v. State of U.P., reported in (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1840, it has been held by the Division Bench that if certain benefits have been given to a person not on the basis of misrepresentation or misappropriation of the person concerned and in lieu thereof if some monetary benefit has been given that cannot be recovered. 14. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , it has again been held that there are several precedents of the Supreme Court where relief has been granted against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowance if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 15. In the present case also, on the admitted facts on record, the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault for wrong fixation of his pay and, as such, the excess amount paid to him could not have been recovered from the post retiral benefits. 16. In the facts and circumstances, a mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,33,803/- deducted from the post retiral benefits of the father of the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them along with 6% simple interest. 17. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed to the extent directed above. _____________