ORDER Mrs. Poonam Srtvastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel on behalf of State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents have issued an order after he was superannuated. The order impugned is for recovery of certain amount which was paid to him in excess allegedly wrongly calculated by the Department. 3. The recovery order is to take effect from 28.02.2002 since the petitioner was paid salary at a higher grade to which he was not entitled. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the respondents on 17th April, 1967 on the post of Treasurer Guard and subsequently to the post of Blue Printer on 27.03.1971. In the year 1973, applications were invited for appointment on the post of Tracer (Anulekhak) and the petitioner applied for the same. He appeared before a Selection Committee along with one Birendra Kumar Singh and many others working in the Department, consequently he started working on the said post. 5. A provisional seniority list of Tracer(Anulekhak) was published inviting objections from the employees. Objections were invited in case there was any error in the seniority list. Since the petitioner was satisfied with the aforesaid Gradation list, no objection was preferred and thus was confirmed finally. 6. Seniority of the petitioner was fixed at SI. No. 1 in Annexure-4/A dated 03.03.1990. The petitioner retired on 28.02.2002 and he was given post retiral benefits. Subsequently, the respondents served an office order stating therein that there was some mistake in the gradation list and Birendra Kumar Singh was declared senior to the petitioner, accordingly, impugned order was passed refixing the seniority and also the decision of the Department to recover excess amount paid to the petitioner since his gradation was wrongly fixed. 7. After going through the entire record and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is apparent that the petitioner had not committed any fault. The provisional gradation list was prepared by the Department itself, the petitioner being satisfied, did not prefer any objection. He worked till the date of superannuation and was given all the entitlement after he retired. The provisional gradation list was prepared by the Department itself, the petitioner being satisfied, did not prefer any objection. He worked till the date of superannuation and was given all the entitlement after he retired. Now at a later stage, the Department has come up with the impugned order whereby, it has detected certain mistake and tried to amend gradation list published at the time when the petitioner was in service and thereby the petitioner is facing recovery after his superannuation. 8. I have heard respective counsel and perused the records. Evidently, the impugned order does not show that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before changing the gradation list whereas, initially a provisional gradation list was prepared and objections were invited. Since the petitioner was satisfied with his seniority list fixed by the Department, there was no occasion to file any objection. After his retirement, the Department is adopting a method whereby, the petitioner is facing the prospect of recovery. At the fag end of his life, specially after his superannuation the impugned recovery can not be allowed specially since he has an unblemished career record. 9. The petitioner who is a retired employee, cannot be subjected for such kind of recovery be it a petty amount since he has retired and he is getting pension and he has also availed post retirement benefits. The benefit was calculated at the last salary drawn and no amendment can be made unilaterally as is being done in the case. 10. In the facts and circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified. The impugned orders dated 29.11.2002 and 23.11.2002 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition and Annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit) respectively are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.