ORAL ORDER The petitioner was initially engaged on muster roll in the year 1971. He was then placed on the post of Progress Clerk in work charge establishment in the pay-scale of Rs.220-350. He was thereafter regularized with effect from 22.10.1984 in regular establishment and his salary was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs.580-680 with effect from 01.01.1986. Petitioner superannuated on 29.02.2008. But, when he was on verge of retirement the impugned order was passed ordering substantial recovery to the tune of Rs.1,30,140.00. He retired as Progress Clerk. Petitioner challenges this order. 2. Pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1 itself, states the reason why this deduction was now being made at the verge of petitioner’s retirement. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that when petitioner was initially appointed, i.e., almost three decades back his pay-scale was wrongly fixed. He was given a slightly higher pay-scale that wrong fixation of pay-scale had a cascading effect through his career which was detected very recently and petitioner has received wrong pay-scale he was liable to refund the amount and, as such the deduction. 5. Sri Mukherji submitted that at no point of time it has either been alleged or averred that petitioner was in any manner responsible for this wrong fixation of pay-scale. He submits that petitioner was in fact a menial employee who had literally nothing to do with regard to fixation of pay-scale at any point of time. From such person to demand such an amount and that too on the verge of retirement would be unreasonable, if not arbitrary. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. since reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 417. Learned counsel for the State also relies on the said judgment. 6. I have considered the same. The said judgment clearly states that an employer has a right to recover anything wrongly paid to an employee. In paragraph-15 of the said judgment two exceptions are carved out in relation to two cases decided by the Apex Court. Petitioner, in my view, clearly comes within the exception. 6. I have considered the same. The said judgment clearly states that an employer has a right to recover anything wrongly paid to an employee. In paragraph-15 of the said judgment two exceptions are carved out in relation to two cases decided by the Apex Court. Petitioner, in my view, clearly comes within the exception. For a mistake continuously committed by the State for over 10 years to which petitioner had no contribution on the verge of retirement the money is being sought to be recovered and that too to the extent of over Rs.1.30 lacs, which is a substantial amount for a person of the stature of Progress Clerk. In my view, petitioner clearly comes within the exception. Such a recovery though entitled in law would be unreasonable and arbitrary. 7. I, therefore, constrained to quash Annexure-1. If recoveries have already been made it shall be forthwith refunded to the petitioner and not later than two months from today. The responsibility for timely refund would lie on the respondent no.3-the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.