Judgment Aggrieved by order dated 11.09.2007, the petitioner who retired on 31.12.2006, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said order dated 11.09.2007. During the pendency of the writ petition another order dated 04.02.2008 was passed whereby excess amount allegedly paid to the petitioner has been recovered from his gratuity. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Meter Reader on 01.04.1971. He was given increment and selection grade also. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2006. After his retirement, the respondents by order dated 11.09.2007 refixed the payscale of the petitioner, whereby it was indicated that the petitioner has been paid excess amount due to wrong calculation. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed justifying the impugned order dated 11.09.2007 on the ground that any excess amount paid due to wrong fixation of payscale can always be recovered by the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the contention that the petitioner has served for about 40 years and after his retirement the impugned order dated 11.09.2007 has been passed. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any collusion or fraud played by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that at such a belated stage, the recovery would cause hardship to the petitioner, who has already retired from service. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.”, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 and contended that fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee is not the only ground for exercise of power by the employer for recovering the amount allegedly paid to the employee. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that when the respondents carried out the exercise of calculation and refixation of the payscale of the petitioner, it was found that an excess amount of Rs.53,584.00 has been paid to the petitioner and therefore, vide order dated 04.02.2008 such amount has rightly been recovered from the gratuity paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the refixation of the payscale of the petitioner was carried out right from the year 1967. I am of the opinion that at such a belated stage when the petitioner has already retired from service after serving for about 40 years, no order for recovery of any excess amount paid to the petitioner can be made by reopening and reexamining the payscale of the petitioner during his entire service period. The respondents have not alleged fraud and misrepresentation or collusion on the part of the petitioner. In so far as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.” (supra) is concerned, it has been made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the excess amount paid may not be recovered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case the petitioner was granted selection grade as well as senior selection grade, besides increments. The anomaly in the payscale of the petitioner visavis, other employee was corrected by the respondents on atleast two occasions, still the alleged excess payment paid to the petitioner was not detected by the respondents. 8. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only 90% of the pension has been allowed to the petitioner and the excess amount of Rs.53,584.00 has been illegally deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner. I find that before making such a deduction from the pension and the gratuity, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner and by impugned order dated 04.02.2008, such deductions have been made from the salary and gratuity of the petitioner. Such a procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be sustained in law. The pension or the gratuity of an employee can be withheld or withdrawn only in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned orders dated 11.09.2007 and 04.02.2008 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.53.584.00 deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner and to pay his retiral dues, as admissible in law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned orders dated 11.09.2007 and 04.02.2008 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.53.584.00 deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner and to pay his retiral dues, as admissible in law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.