JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is a Draftsman in the services of the Kerala Water Authority. He is aggrieved by the Ext.P3 audit objection regarding grant of second higher grade to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted second higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Engineer, which is a promotion post for Draftsman. Later on, the audit raised an objection that the petitioner is not entitled to the second higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Engineer, since he does not possess all the qualifications prescribed for the post of Asst. Engineer and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to only the intermediate scale of pay as per the Table provided in the pay revision orders as second higher grade. The petitioner is challenging the audit objection on two grounds. The first is that for grant of higher grade, no minimum period of service is prescribed as per the pay revision orders and therefore, simply because the petitioner does not have the minimum two years service in the post of Overseer Gr.I for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner cannot be denied the higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Engineer. The second is that even assuming that the petitioner is not entitled to the higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Engineer, insofar as the petitioner has not contributed to the mistake, the petitioner should not be burdened with the liability to refund the huge amount now demanded from the petitioner. The petitioner points out that, by Ext.P7 dated 27.6.2011, the petitioner has been directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,62,616/-, which is arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. I have heard both sides. An employee is entitled to higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post only if the employee has all the requisite qualifications for promotion to that post. Admittedly, for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in addition to the educational qualifications, the employee must have rendered service under the Water Authority for a minimum period of five years, of which not less than two years should be in the category of Overseer Gr.I. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the two years service in the category of Overseer Gr.I at the time, when the petitioner became eligible for the second higher grade. That being so, the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as Assistant Engineer on the relevant date. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Assistant Engineer and he is entitled to the higher grade in the intermediate scale. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge of the petitioner against the audit objection. 3. As far as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner has to prove that the petitioner has not contributed to the mistake and also that the recovery is after lapse of many years. In this case, the fixation of the petitioner's pay in the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Engineer on grant of higher grade is by Ext.P2 dated, August 2004. Ext.P3 audit objection is dated 26.3.2007, about 2 = years after the fixation of pay. In addition to that, as is evident from Ext.P1, the petitioner was originally granted higher grade only in the intermediate scale and it is as per the request of the petitioner that he was granted higher grade in the scale of applicable to the Assistant Engineer. Therefore, evidently, the petitioner also contributed to the mistake. That being so, on both counts, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.