JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.4280 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition with the cost ofRs.1,000/-. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was employee of respondent University and was lastly working as Associate Director. On 29.3.2002, an honorarium was sanctioned for the period from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1999 and from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002. On 31.1.2003, the petitioner retired from service upon reaching the age of superannuation. However, while retiring the petitioner from service, an amount ofRs.1,31,850/- was withheld from his gratuity amount vide order dated 18.2.2003 towards payment already made as honorarium for the National Watershed Project. On 1.10.2004, the respondent University had issued notice to the petitioner after retirement, which was replied by the petitioner and vide letter dated 29.7.2006, the petitioner was intimated by the University to remain personally present for the hearing. However, at that time, the petitioner was abroad and, therefore, he had requested for time to grant personal hearing. On 10.12.2008, vide Notification the respondent University decided to recover the amount of honorarium from the petitioner. On 16.3.2009, the petitioner challenged the said decision by preferring SCA No.2310 of 2009, but the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with the correct annexures. On 23.6.2009, fresh petition was filed being Special Civil Application No.3114 of 2009 and the decision was quashed and set aside vide judgment dated 23.6.2009 and it was observed that the respondent may pass appropriate orders after issuing notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner. On 18.2.2010, the respondent University replied the Advocate of the petitioner with regard to the notice and refused to refund the amount deducted from the gratuity. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by preferring SCA No.5868 of 2010. The said SCA was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.5.2010 against which LPA No.1573 of 2010 was preferred and in the said LPA, the Division Bench vide order dated 9.2.2011 passed the order directing the University to examine all aspects and to take appropriate decision. The said SCA was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.5.2010 against which LPA No.1573 of 2010 was preferred and in the said LPA, the Division Bench vide order dated 9.2.2011 passed the order directing the University to examine all aspects and to take appropriate decision. Ultimately, vide order dated 5.3.2011, the University rejected the demands of the petitioner and refused to refund the amount of honorarium, which was withheld from the amount of gratuity. It is under these circumstances, the present petition being SCA No.4280 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge found that as the petitioner had not visited outside the area for the project and had worked within his office, the decision of rejecting the claim of honorarium cannot be said as unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, the petition was rejected and the cost ofRs.1,000/- was imposed. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard Mr.G.B. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Chauhan, learned Counsel with Ms.Naina Patel for the respondent. 4. It appears from the record that it was not a case where the petitioner moved the proposal for sanction of the honorarium and such sanction was so granted by the University, but it was a case where the proposal was forwarded by the Director of Research for sanction of honorarium to all those persons, who had worked under the Project. The said aspect is apparent in the sanction order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-B to the compilation of the SCA. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner neither misrepresented anything, nor he played any fraud in getting the amount of honorarium. On the contrary, it can be said that considering the work done by all persons in the project, Director of Research found that there is provision of paying honorarium to those persons, who have undertaken the work and it was a case for recommending payment of honorarium on the basis of basic salary and, therefore, the proposal was made to the Vice Chancellor of the University. After considering the proposal the Vice Chancellor of the University has granted sanction for the payment of honorarium. After considering the proposal the Vice Chancellor of the University has granted sanction for the payment of honorarium. It has also come on record that after the actual payment of honorarium was made pursuant to the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 6.3.2002 and the petitioner retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.1.2003. At the time when the petitioner retired from service there was no inquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the aspect of recovery of the amount of honorarium, but it appears that the amount ofRs.1,31,850/- was withheld from the amount of gratuity. The show-cause notice has been issued on 1.10.2004 after the petitioner retired from service upon reaching the age of superannuation. The pertinent aspect is that the action for the recovery is initiated for the first time on 1.10.2004 after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.1.2003. It is also come on record for the actual recovery the order is passed on 10.12.2008 and if the relevant date of payment is considered, the same was after six years and if the date of retirement is considered, it can be said that after a period of about five years, the recovery is said to be affected. It is in this light of the fact situation the matter is to be examined. 5. Before we proceed for consideration of the further aspect, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question of recovery of the excess emoluments/allowance paid not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee concerned. It was observed by the Apex Court in the above referred decision at paragraphs 57 and 58 as under:- "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was 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 subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18 : 1995 AIR SCW 1780, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCC 521; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416 ; V. Ganga Ram v. Regional Jt., Director, [1997] 6 SCC 139 : AIR 1997 SC 2776 ; Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 709 : AIR SCW 5252; Purshottam Lal Das & Ors., v. State of Bihar, [2006] 11 SCC 492 : 2006 AIR SCW 5352; Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Anr., [2006] 8 SCC 647 : AIR 2007 SC 262 ; and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur & Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 99 ." 6. The aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court show that the excess amount, if was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee concerned, but was paid by the employer by applying wrong principles for calculating pay or allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule or order, which is subsequently found erroneous, the recovery cannot be affected. 7. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been subsequently considered by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 : AIR 2012 SC 2951 , wherein the aforesaid three Judges Bench decision in Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 AIR SCW 1871 (supra) was referred to and the Apex Court further observed at paragraphs 12 to 15, which read as under:- "12. Later, a three Judge Bench in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) after referring to Shyam Babu Verma, Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) etc. restrained the department from recovery of excess amount paid, but held as follows: "Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants teachers should be made. (emphasis added)" We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case such a direction was given keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them. 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. 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 overpayment 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 (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court show that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 AIR SCW 1871 (supra) was maintained in a case where the beneficiaries had either retired or was on the verge of retirement. Therefore, the principle qua the employee, who has already retired, has not been diluted, but is rather maintained. 9. Therefore, the principle qua the employee, who has already retired, has not been diluted, but is rather maintained. 9. If the facts of the present case are further examined in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had already retired on 10.12.2008 when the University for the first time decided to recover the amount of honorarium. Not only that but a period of five years had passed on that date, since the petitioner retired on 31.1.2003. It is true that the gratuity amount was withheld, but that also could not have been done without there being any order for recovery of the amount and so far as of the recovery of the amount is concerned, as observed earlier, the order has been passed for the first time on 10.12.2008. Therefore, the action of withholding of the amount of gratuity would not be available as a valid ground for the purpose of maintaining the recovery for which the order has been passed after about five years of retirement. 10. If the matter is considered strictly in letters of the law, one may also say that the action of the respondent of withholding of the amount of gratuity in absence of order for recovery of the amount was not warranted under the law, inasmuch as, if any amount of gratuity is withheld, it is an action, which may attract penalty in law as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. As per the provisions of Section 13 of Payment of Gratuity Act, the said amount of gratuity is not liable to any attachment in execution of any decree or order of a Civil Court. When there was no order for recovery whatsoever, the amount could not be withheld and even if there was order, the said amount of gratuity was exempted from attachment from any execution of any decree or order. Not only that, but even if the suit for recovery of the amount was to be filed on the date after considering the cause from the date of retirement, then also on the date when the order is passed the period of about five years from the date of retirement had already expired and, therefore, it could be said that the suit was also barred in law. Under these circumstances, the action for withholding of the amount, or for recovery of the amount could be said as not warranted in law. 11. Apart from the above, the matter could be said as covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 AIR CSW 1871 (supra), inasmuch as, as per the above referred observations of the Apex Court if the payment is made by erroneous interpretation, the same cannot be recovered at a later stage, more particularly when there was no misrepresentation or fraud played by the employee concerned and that too, in a case where the employee had already retired long back. In the present case, taking into consideration the proposal made by the Director of Research that the petitioner could be said as having worked on the project, may be by way of working in the project from his office, it was found by the Vice Chancellor of the University, interpreting that the employee could be said as having contributed to the project and, therefore, would be entitled to the honorarium. Subsequently, in the present impugned order, recovery is said to have been passed on a different interpretation, inasmuch as the employee concerned ought to have visited the field, then only he would be entitled to the honorarium. Such, in our view, would be in a realm of interpretation of the Scheme of the Project, for which earlier interpretation was also made by the then Vice Chancellor of the University and subsequently, a different interpretation is made by In-charge Vice Chancellor of the University, which has resulted into the recovery. Such cases would be directly covered by the observations made by the Apex Court at paragraph 57 of the decision in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 AIR SCW 1871 (supra) referred to and reproduced herein above. 12. Such cases would be directly covered by the observations made by the Apex Court at paragraph 57 of the decision in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 AIR SCW 1871 (supra) referred to and reproduced herein above. 12. Further, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2012 SC 2951(supra), the decision is still maintained that if the employee concerned had already retired from service, the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in its earlier decision in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2009 AIR SCW 1871 (supra) would hold good. 13. Under these circumstances, we find that the recovery could not have been made of the amount of honorarium already paid to the petitioner and the petitioner had neither made any misrepresentation, nor had played any fraud and that too, in any case, could not have been affected after about five years from the date of retirement of the petitioner. 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the order dated 5.3.2011 - Annexure-Q and earlier orders passed by the Acting/In-charge Vice Chancellor of the University for recovery of the amount are quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the respondent shall release amount of gratuity, which has been withheld with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which it was due till actual payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.