Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the District Registrar, Myladuthurai, the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6378/A/2008 dated 15.6.2009 and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 20.12.1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant on 1.4.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted to Sub Registrar Grade II on 7.11.92 and was promoted as Sub Registrar Grade I on 14.1.1999. 3. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.6.2008. While the District Registrar, the 2nd respondent herein forwarded the pension proposal to the Accountant General, the 3rd respondent herein who raised objection to the pay fixation given to the petitioner consequent to the revision of pay under Sixth pay commission recommendations and subsequent to the direction issued by the 3rd respondent, the impugned order came to be passed on 15.6.2009. 4. The sum and substance of the order is that the fixation of pay made as on 1.1.1996 at Rs.5,900/- is erroneous, whereas the correct pay that should have been fixed is Rs.5,750/-. If the pay as on 1.1.1996 is taken as Rs.5,750/-, the pay should have been revised thereafter from time to time with reference to the lesser pay. 5. It is stated that since excess pay has been granted from 1.1.1996 the same should be recovered. This order of the second respondent is being challenged under the following grounds: (i) The impugned order for recovery was passed without notice (ii) The three letters referred to in the impugned proceedings which formed the basis for recovery were not furnished (iii) The fixation of pay on 1.1.1996 was not on account of any misstatement of the fact or misrepresentation by the petitioner so as to find fault in the pay fixation after 14 years. 6. This Court by order dated 22.1.2011 in MP No.1 of 2010 passed the following order: “Refixation of the scale of pay after 14 years and the consequential order of recovery passed by the District Registrar, Myladuthurai, Nagapattinam District, second respondent herein dated 15.6.2009, is put to challenge in this writ petition. 2. Though interim stay has been granted as early as on 18.3.2010, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Courts have consistently held that the recovery order cannot be passed after retirement. 3. 2. Though interim stay has been granted as early as on 18.3.2010, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Courts have consistently held that the recovery order cannot be passed after retirement. 3. In view of the above, interim stay granted by this Court is made absolute. Respondents are directed to file counter within four weeks. Post the matter after four weeks” 7. Since no counter was filed so far, this Court is constrained to pass final order inspite of the fact that no counter has been filed, as the principle of law in a case of this nature has been settled by the Apex Court reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 (Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs State of Bihar and Others) following the earlier decision of the Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram vs State of Haryana). 8. The Apex court has laid down in many cases the following principle that if any excess amount has been paid and it is not on account of any misrepresentation of fraud on the part of the person concerned or if excess payment is 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 found to be subsequently erroneous, recovery of excess payment is not justified. 9. In the present case, as could be seen from the impugned order, there is no mention of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The revision of pay was made erroneously by the department and after 14 years, without issuing notice, without communicating to the petitioner the three letters cited under reference in the impugned order dated 15.6.2009, and without independent application of mind the recovery order has been issued. 10. As could be seen from the tenor of the letter, it is stated that the recovery was ordered pursuant to the direction issued by the 3rd respondent, which establishes the case of non application of mind by the 2nd respondent. 11. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.