JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Singh for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the General Manager (Administration) U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 74,383.70 alongwith a further sum of Rs. 12,000 from the post retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has retired from the post of Accountant in the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. on 31.7.2003. Due to failure of the part of the respondents to pay the post retirement benefits, the petitioner and 4 others, filed the writ petition number 42428 of 2004, which was disposed off by the order dated 8.10.2004 directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representations’ of the petitioners within a period of 6 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. It is only thereafter that the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed. 4. A sum of Rs. 74,383.70 has been directed to be recovered from the post retirement benefits payable to the petitioner on account of an audit objection while a further sum of Rs. 12,000 towards sundry advances has also been directed to be recovered from the post retirement benefits. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that similar orders were passed in the case of all the 5 persons who had preferred writ petition No. 42428 of 2004 aforementioned. All of them preferred separate writ petitions detailed below, against the similar orders passed in pursuance of directions contained in the order in writ petition No. 42428 of 2004, supra. (i) Civil Misc. Writ Petition no: 44550 of 2005 (Kailash Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and others). (ii) Civil Misc Writ Petition no: 44548 of 2005 (Ramesh Pandey v. State of U.P. and others). (iii) Civil Misc Writ Petition no: 42538 of 2005. (Ram Bachchan Singh v. State of U.P. and others) (iv) Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition no: 42539 of 2005 (Baleshwar Singh v. State of U.P. and others). 6. The writ petition no: 44550 of 2005, filed by Kailash Nath Mishra was allowed by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2008, and the order impugned therein was quashed, holding that after superannuation recovery cannot be made, specially when there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. 6. The writ petition no: 44550 of 2005, filed by Kailash Nath Mishra was allowed by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2008, and the order impugned therein was quashed, holding that after superannuation recovery cannot be made, specially when there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The operative portion of the order is quoted below “In view of the settled legal position, the respondents are not entitled to recover the excess amount, which was paid to the petitioner on account of the lapses of the authorities in calculation of salary of the petitioner. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed.” 7. The order aforesaid has been followed in the case of the other three Writ petitions noted above. 8. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgements and orders passed in the four aforementioned writ petitions. Shri S.N. Singh, learned Counsel representing respondents 2, 3 and 5 has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature so as to persuade this Court to take a different view specially since all the petitioners were employed in the same department and were otherwise similarly situated. 9. It is the case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the sum of Rs 73,383.70 was wrongly paid to the petitioner and on an audit objection being raised, the same has been ordered to be recovered from his post retirement dues. 10. Thus it is clear that the sum of Rs. 74,383.70 was the excess money paid to the petitioner on account of some mistake in calculation by the authorities concerned. This component is fully covered by the judgments of this Court referred to above. However, the further sum of Rs. 12,000 which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner is under the head of sundry advances and this part is clearly not covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Court. 11. The latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttrakhand, 2012(4) ESC 509 (SC), has held that even amounts which have been paid to a person without any fault on his part and on account of wrong pay fixation are recoverable but in paragraph 15 of this judgement certain exceptions have been carved out. The said paragraph is quoted below : “We are therefore of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col. J.B. Akara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.” 12. The exceptions referred to above are those cases where the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 13. The petitioner in the instant case was working as an Auditor and has already retired and is thus covered by the exceptions noted above. 14. Under the circumstances this writ petition is liable to be allowed in part. The order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 in so far as it directs recovery of a sum of Rs. 74,383.70 deserves to be quashed. It will however be open to the respondents to recover the sum of Rs. 12,000 under the head of sundry advances. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed and the order impugned dated 27.1.2005 is set aside to the extent indicated above. Any deductions already made towards recovery of Rs. 74,383.70 from the post retiral benefits payable to the petitioner shall be reimbursed to the petitioner within three months from date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. The respondents are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards sundry advances paid to the petitioner, if not already recovered. ————