JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of Memo No. 177 Ranchi dated 13th May 2010 (Annexure-19) issued by the Deputy Director, Geo Engineering Cell, Ranchi (Respondent No. 4), whereby the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced allegedly after one year after his retirement and his provisional pension fixed earlier has also been modified and reduced vide Memo No. 209 Ranchi dated 9th June 2010 (Annexure-21). The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of Memo No. 288 dated 19th April 2012 (Annexure-33 issued by the Respondent No. 4, whereby an amount of Rs.1,76,259/- has been recovered from the cash amount of un-utilized leave of the petitioner, after his retirement. The petitioner has also consequentially prayed for release of post retirement dues and interest thereon, till payment, such as gratuity, cash for un-utilized leave, full pension in place of provisional pension, difference of amount of group insurance scheme along with interest. He has also sought quashing of the order by which, he has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,76,259/- in question and consequentially, refund of the recovered amount. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Cashier on 22nd November 1973 under the respondent Department. On the basis of his seniority, he was posted as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in different offices vide Memo dated 26th March 1990. According to him, he was promoted and posted as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the office of the Additional Director (Geology), Ranchi. His provisional promotion to the said post was confirmed under the instructions and provisions of the Circular dated 12th August 1992 of the Finance Department with the approval of the Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar. He was informed of such confirmation by Office Memo dated 05th February 1996. Thereafter, certain arrears on account of grant of promotion in Junior Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 amounting to Rs.5,718.80 was also received by him through Office Memo dated 14th April 1999. He also received the monetary benefits of Rs.33,957/- in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 for the period between 1st March 1989 to 31st December 1995, in March 2001. 4. According to him, he was promoted on the post of Head Clerk in Senior Selection Grade in the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 vide Office Memo dated 22nd June 2001 (Annexure-4). He also received the monetary benefits of Rs.33,957/- in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 for the period between 1st March 1989 to 31st December 1995, in March 2001. 4. According to him, he was promoted on the post of Head Clerk in Senior Selection Grade in the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 vide Office Memo dated 22nd June 2001 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand Cadre as a Head Clerk. He has also been given the benefits of first ACP along with second ACP in the pay scale of 4500-7000 and Rs.5000-8000 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner has been given the financial benefits in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01st April 1997 vide Memo dated 26th July 2006 issued by the Directorate of Geology, Ranchi (Annexure-7). The petitioner thereafter retired on 30th June 2009. After his retirement, he submitted his papers for release of post retirement dues such as pension, gratuity, un-utilized leave amount and group insurance amount. In such circumstances, after his retirement, the respondent had provisionally fixed his pension at the rate of Rs.9,387/- per month being 90% of the admissible pension which was being paid since 1st July 2009. The petitioner was entitled to release of 2,50,000/- against un-utilized leave of 300 days. 5. In the aforesaid background, the grievance of the petitioner arose because of action of the respondents in reducing the scale of the petitioner after his retirement vide office memo dated 13th May 2010 (Annexure-19). He had certain grievances relating to lesser payment of group insurance amount which, according to him, was approved as Rs.1,34,033/-, but he was paid a sum of Rs.1,19,146/-. His further grievance is that his provisional pension which was fixed at Rs.9,387/- per month, has also been revised and reduced to Rs.8,843/- per month. By Annexure-23 dated 7th July 2010, the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.1,76,259/- shall be recovered from the amount of un-utilized leave which however, is contrary to the pension rules. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of the aforesaid grievances. 6. The petitioner has exchanged correspondences for payment of the balance post retirement dues. However, in the meantime, recovery of the amount of Rs.1,76,259/- has been made vide Memo dated 19th April 2012 (Annexure-33). 7. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of the aforesaid grievances. 6. The petitioner has exchanged correspondences for payment of the balance post retirement dues. However, in the meantime, recovery of the amount of Rs.1,76,259/- has been made vide Memo dated 19th April 2012 (Annexure-33). 7. It is the stand of the respondents that on 26th March 1990 the petitioner was made in-charge Clerk-cum-Accountant in his own scale by way of working arrangement and it was not a regular promotion. For such regular promotion, reservation, vigilance clearance and confidential records are required, but it was not done in the case of the petitioner. When the matter relating to grant of ACP was sent for verification to the Finance Department, the Finance Department given an opinion that the petitioner had not been promoted in a regular way on the post of Head Clerk. Hence, the pay scale admissible to him on 01st January 1996 was Rs.4000-6000 instead of Rs.4500-7000 and the same was directed to be revised and excess amount withdrawn by the petitioner was calculated which came to Rs.1,76,259/-. It is further stated that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondents vide office letter no. 254 dated 7th July 2010, but he did not furnish any reply. Even thereafter, reminder was issued by the Deputy Director, Geology, Engineering Geology Cell, Ranchi vide letter no. 287 dated 28th July 2010. Since the petitioner did not furnish any reply, nor deposited the excess amount received by him, the same was deducted from his leave encashment. Other retirement benefits such as group insurance, GPF, gratuity have already been paid to the petitioner. However, certain articles taken by the petitioner, has not been returned in the office of Additional Director, Geology, Ranchi. These facts have also been further reiterated in other paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. The petitioner, in his rejoinder, has however failed to rebut the aforesaid contention made in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit that show-cause notice was issued to him before undertaking such reduction in his pay scale as also recovery of the excess amount paid to him on that account earlier. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It appears from perusal of Annexure-1 that the petitioner was given the charge of the office of Head Clerk on 26th March 1990 in his own pay scale. There is no order on record to show that the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the said post. Therefore, this fact has not been disputed that the petitioner was never regularly promoted on regular basis to the post of Head Clerk. The grant of first and second ACP which was made vide Annexure-6 dated 19th March 2005 to the petitioner in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 and Rs.5000-8000 respectively, indicates that it was provisional in nature and it was to be verified by the Finance Department whose decision would be final. Therefore, on verification of such grant of higher pay scale, it has been found to be erroneous as the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Head Clerk on regular basis, respondents have issued notice upon the petitioner and then on his failure to respond to the same, taken a decision to revise his pay scale and recovered the excess amount paid to him. Therefore, it appears that the respondents have taken steps to comply with the principles of natural justice as well. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 have laid down the legal position in that respect. Relevant paragraphs 13-16 are quoted hereunder: “13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed abdul Qadir case and in Col. B.J. Akkara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered. 16. The appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order that the excess payment made be recovered from the appellant's salary in twelve equal monthly instalments starting from October 2012.” 10. In the totality of the facts and circumstances therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the orders by which his pay scale has been reduced and recovery of excess amount paid to him has been made. In the totality of the facts and circumstances therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the orders by which his pay scale has been reduced and recovery of excess amount paid to him has been made. However, after such recovery if any of the balance post retirement dues of the petitioner are still outstanding, the same should be released by the respondents within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.