ORDER The petitioner was appointed as bill clerk in Electric Supply Division, Katihar, of the Bihar State Electricity Board on 16.6.1971. On 31.7.2012 petitioner retired from the service as Account Assistant, Bhagalpur Electric Supply Area, Bhagalpur. He has filed this writ petition for payment of full pension, G.P.F. and other dues. During the pendency of the writ petition, he was communicated about fixation of final pension which was substantially made on account of his pay drawn having been reduced after his superannuation. He has challenged that order by interlocutory application. By the said order another aspect has also come to light allegedly for a wrong fixation of pay done in the year 1977, the pay of the petitioner is now after his superannuation being sought to be revised and on that basis of revision from the year 1977 to till date, an amount of Rs. 2,66,765 and 41 paise is said to be recovered from his pensionary dues. This has again been challenged by the petitioner. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Board it is stated that when the auditor was examining the matter of final fixation of pension of the petitioner after his superannuation, discrepancies were detected and they have been sought to be rectified. Accordingly, his last pay stands reduced. Consequently, all his retiral dues calculated on the basis of revised last pay stands reduced as also his pension. It is then submitted that an employer has a right to correct a mistake and, as such, a mistake having been committed in the year 1977 it is now being corrected after 35 years. 3. Having heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. So far as the right of correction is concerned, that right is undeniable but the question is has it been rightly done. Petitioner has annexed his service book. In the service book there are clear notings that the senior auditors have verified the fixation of salary and grant of promotion and increments. They are in order. These are specific notings of the year 1985. Thus, fixation of pay and grant of promotion have been examined by the senior auditors as far back as in the year 1985 and nothing wrong was found. Now 25 years later, auditor, after petitioner’s retirement, takes a different view of the matter. They are in order. These are specific notings of the year 1985. Thus, fixation of pay and grant of promotion have been examined by the senior auditors as far back as in the year 1985 and nothing wrong was found. Now 25 years later, auditor, after petitioner’s retirement, takes a different view of the matter. The question is can this be done. In my view, in the facts noted above, it cannot be done. If this is permitted then there would be no finality ever. People will keep differing in their views and keep tinkering with the accounts much to the prejudice of the employee. In the facts and circumstances noted above, it would be seen that the correction is being made on an account that took place 35 years back. That action was approved by senior auditors 25 years back. That is being tried to be set at naught. Now after petitioner has superannuated, it is because of all these reasons I hold that the exercise of correction cannot be and ought not to be permitted. What stopped Board from verifying the accounts before the petitioner retired, it is not stated. The fact that senior auditor had examined accounts is not contradicted. Thus, I cannot, in such a situation, permit such a correction at this distant period. 5. We come to the question of recovery. What is now said is that 35 years back someone in the Board had made a mistake while calculating pay fixation. To day after petitioner’s retirement, the mistake is being realized and hence, recovery is to be made. In my view, this is wholly impermissible. In this connection, I may refer a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2012(8) SCC 417 and in particular what is stated in para-15 thereof, which is quoted hereinbelow.— “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.” 6. Thus, the recovery order has to be set aside. No recovery can be permitted after a person has superannuated. 7. B.J. Akkara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.” 6. Thus, the recovery order has to be set aside. No recovery can be permitted after a person has superannuated. 7. Thus, in my view, the petitioner would be entitled to keep his pensionary benefits calculated on the basis of last pay actually drawn by him and not on the basis of any revised calculation made by the Board. The recovery sought to be made as a consequence of wrong fixation of pay in the year 1977 cannot be sustained and is quashed accordingly. 8. Let the Board accordingly finalise the pensionary benefits as well as death-cum-retirement pensionary benefits within a period of one month from today and pay all outstanding arrears to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days thereafter. The responsibility of which would be on the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bhagalpur Area Electric Supply, Mayaganj, P.O. Barari, District-Bhagalpur (Respondent No. 4). 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation this writ application is disposed of.