1. Gurnam Singh-respondent no. 1 herein after serving the respondents-petitioners herein as Combatant Clerk, joined as LDC in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan w.e.f. 20.04.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1500. The petitioners made deduction from respondent no. 1 on account of un-ignorable portion of pension drawn by him. It was later on detected that an amount of Rs. 1842/- equal to the revised pension excluding the ignorable portion of pension should have been deducted from the pay of respondent no. 1 fixed as Rs. 4590/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The petitioners, accordingly, issued a Show Cause Notice to respondent no. 1 on 24.03.2006 requiring him to show cause against the recovery of excess amount drawn by him and re-fixation of his salary. Though, respondent no. 1 in his reply to Show Cause Notice opposed the proposed action, yet the matter was dealt with by the petitioners and vide Order dated 30.03.2006. They directed recovery of Rs. 2,10,962/- from respondent no. 1 and thereafter vide Order dated 19.07.2006 approved re-fixation of his salary. The representation dated 29.03.2006 made by respondent no. 1 was, accordingly, disposed of. 2. The respondent no.1 aggrieved with the orders dated 30.03.2006 and 19.07.2006 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench with an application registered as 586-JK of 2006 seeking quashment of aforesaid orders. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2009 quashed both the orders and issued directions to respondents- petitioners herein to fix the pay of applicant-respondent no. 1 herein from 01.01.1996 by ignoring the enhanced portion of pension of the applicant-respondent no. 1 and also to fix his pension and pensionary benefits accordingly. The Tribunal directed that recovery be not made pursuant to order dated 30.03.2006 and amount if any recovered be returned to the applicant-respondent no. 1. 3. Petitioners aggrieved with the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh has filed writ petition on hand. The Tribunal's Order dated 17.11.2009 is assailed on the grounds set out in the petition. 4. We have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is a settled law that any payment made to Government servant on account of his salary and service benefits, due to inadvertence clerical error or miscalculation cannot be recovered unless and until there is an element of deceit or fraud attributable to the Government employee. It is no body's case that respondent no. 5. It is a settled law that any payment made to Government servant on account of his salary and service benefits, due to inadvertence clerical error or miscalculation cannot be recovered unless and until there is an element of deceit or fraud attributable to the Government employee. It is no body's case that respondent no. 1 had persuaded the petitioners in deceitful manner to pay him in excess to what was due to him. The petitioners, therefore, lack authority and jurisdiction to seek recovery of amount that has been paid to respondent no. 1 over and above what was due to him. 6. So viewed there can said to be no disagreement with Tribunal order dated 17.11.2009 whereby recovery was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal, however, has left it open to the petitioners to re-fix respondent no. 1's pay and work out the pension and pensionary benefits payable to him. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot have any grievance on that account. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that recovery and re-fixation has been ordered by the petitioners under misconception that Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 and the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 were not attracted in the respondent no. 1's case. It is pleaded that the petitioners are likely to desist from an exercise to re-fix the pay and work out the pension and pensioner benefits, once they apply rules applicable in the present case. 8. While making aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. G. Vasudevan Pillay, 1995 (2) SCC 32 and Yogeshwar Prasad and others v. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration and others, 2010 AIR SCW 7136. 9. Since question of re-fixation of pay, pension and pensionary benefits is wide open in terms of Tribunal order dated 17.11.2009, the petitioners are expected to have regard to rules and judgments while taking a decision in the matter. 10. We, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the writ petitioners to consider the case of respondent no. 10. We, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the writ petitioners to consider the case of respondent no. 1 for re-fixation of his pay, pension and pensionary benefits in the light of the rules occupying the field, including the rules and judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 11. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA.