Judgment 1. The petitioner is a retired Panchayat Union Elementary School Headmaster. He retired from service on 31.10.1995. He was granted pension. His pension with effect from 01.01.2012 was revised, based on an Audit Report. In the Audit Report, it was found that the revision of his pension from 01.01.2007 and payment of the same till 31.12.2011 was not done correctly. As a matter of fact, an excess amount of Rs.48,912/- had been paid for the said period. The 2nd respondent, by his proceedings in Ka.Mu.Aa.150/11/G1, dated 30.01.2012, directed recovery of the said amount of Rs.48,912/- from the pension amount of the petitioner, in six instalments. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the pension of the petitioner was to be revised as per G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 01.06.2009 but, the petitioner had wilfully misrepresented his date of retirement as 31.10.1998 and based on the same, pension was revised, wrongly. It is further averred that this was found out by the audit and that is how, it was rectified and by revising the pension, the impugned order has been passed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Therefore recovery order is sustainable, it is stated. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records, carefully. 4. Regarding the revision of the pension with effect from 01.01.2012, the petitioner has got no grievance. His grievance is only in respect of recovery of excess amount said to have been paid, between 01.01.2007 and 31.12.2011. Admittedly, the revision was made on the higher side. This mistake occurred because his date of retirement was wrongly taken as 31.10.1998 instead of 31.10.1995. It is stated that the petitioner misrepresented his date of retirement as 31.10.1998. This is stoutly denied by the petitioner in the reply filed to the counter. In my considered opinion, this contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the revision of pay is to be made based on the service records of the petitioner. When the service records are available in the office of the respondents, I do not know as to how the petitioner could have misrepresented the respondents to have 31.10.1998 as his date of retirement. When the service records are available in the office of the respondents, I do not know as to how the petitioner could have misrepresented the respondents to have 31.10.1998 as his date of retirement. In my considered view, the mistake was on the part of the respondents in having taken 31.101998 as the date of retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, for the fault committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalized. 5. Now, when the question of recovery comes, we have to look into the legal position. In Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if excess amount had been paid not on any wrong representation or misrepresentation by the employee, recovery cannot made. This judgment has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarkhand, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that recovery cannot be made in a routine manner and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances under which recovery can be departed is the age, family circumstance and the verge of retirement of the employee. Here, in this case, the amount paid in excess is towards retirement benefits. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal case, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is further directed that if any recovery has already been made, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.