Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned part of the order, vide which, directions have been issued to recover excess pay and allowances of Rs.43,434/-(Rupees Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four only) drawn from 01.06.1988 to 06.10.1999, approached this Court, by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The petitioner is the wife of Mr.M.N.Natarajan, the deceased employee, who was employed in the Office of the Directorate of Rural Development. The husband of the petitioner was promoted as Extension Officer (Accounts) on 01.10.1985 in the pay scale of Rs.905-45-1445-50-1545. The Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules was enforced on 28.03.1989 and the scales were revised with retrospective effect with effect from 01.06.1988. 3. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased husband of the petitioner was in selection grade as on 01.10.1985, the Directorate of Rural Development, vide order dated 04.06.1990, fixed pay of the applicant at Rs.1,700/-from 01.06.1988 in the higher scale for revised selection grade post. The grant of higher selection grade pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900, granted to the petitioner, was objected to in Audit through regular inspection report dated 14.07.1994, stating that the selection grade scale of the petitioner should be restricted to Rs.1600-2600 and not the higher selection grade scale of Rs.1640-2900. The objection raised by the Audit was settled on the explanation offered by the department. 4. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter, while fixing the pension, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1600-2600 instead of higher selection grade of Rs.1640-2900. In consequence thereof, the impugned part of order was passed, directing recovery of Rs.43,434/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four only). 5. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that fixation of pay was done by the department without any participation of the husband of the petitioner and there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of her husband, therefore, it is not open to the respondents to recover the excess amount, even if paid wrongly. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the husband of the petitioner had no role to play in fixation of salary, is not disputed, therefore, in view of the settled law that the benefit once granted cannot be withdrawn in absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, deserves to be accepted. 7. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the husband of the petitioner had no role to play in fixation of salary, is not disputed, therefore, in view of the settled law that the benefit once granted cannot be withdrawn in absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, deserves to be accepted. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned part of order directing recovery of Rs.43,434/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four only) is ordered to be quashed and the respondents are directed to release the withheld payment to the petitioner within two months of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that if the requisite amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10%p.a. from the due date till date of payment. No costs.