JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants at the admission stage.The defects pointed out by the office are waived.By way of this intra Court appeal, appellants-respondents have challenged the order of the learned Single judge dated 11.1.2010 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1204/2008 allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner- respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case arising out of this appeal are that respondent- petitioner Vijay Kumar, was initially appointed as Patwari in the services of the Irrigation Department on 28.5.1975. On completion of 15 years of service he was granted the pay of the post of Ziledar in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Vide order dated 16.9.1993 he was granted first selection grade, on completion of 9 years of service and was granted the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The respondent-petitioner was granted second selection grade vide order dated 23.12.1993 and was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2300. After completion of requisite period of service on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent-petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2007. The respondent-petitioner's pension case was not finalised because of the objection raised by the Accounts Officer, of the Pension Department, whereas the employer Assistant Engineer concerned informed the department that the respondent-petitioner has been fixed in the pay scale of T1850/-. The Assistant Engineer, vide communication dated 13.8.2007 further informed that excess amount paid to the respondent-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 respondent-petitioner. The recovery has been made from the pension of the respondent-petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing and he was granted retiral benefits after a delay of about 5 months. In the aforesaid circumstances the respondent-petitioner preferred the writ petition. The learned Single judge vide order dated 11.1.2010 allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred this intra Court appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge ordered to pay Rs. In the aforesaid circumstances the respondent-petitioner preferred the writ petition. The learned Single judge vide order dated 11.1.2010 allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred this intra Court appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge ordered to pay Rs. 53,959/- to the respondent-petitioner as well as any consequential benefits which may be given, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date when the amount became due, cannot be sustained because the above amount was recovered from the petitioner in view of the order of the competent officer i.e. Assistant Engineer of the appellant Department. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned Single judge decided this case on the basis of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed in Goverdhan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2004 (1) Western Law Cases (Rajasthan) 128 . 6. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single judge because it is the settled proposition of law that once the payment made rightly or wrongly to the employee cannot be recovered after a lapse of such a long time. 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at the admission stage and the judgment of the learned Single judge is maintained.Appeal dismissed. *******