ORDER : By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner Shabbir Mohammad has challenged the recovery made against him pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2008. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner rendered service on the post of Driver in the Department of Tribal Development at Alirajpur. Heattained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2007, however, he was allowed to continue into service up to 10.03.2008. He also continued to receive salary for the said period, however, respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Alirajpur issued an order dated 10.03.2008 and informed the petitioner that since his date of retirement was 31.07.2007 he had to be retired with retrospective effect and the excess amount paid to the petitioner by way of salary etc would have to be recovered from the retiral benefits and the excess amount was declared to be Rs.52646/-. 3. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had submitted all the required papers, forms, applications to the respondents for finalisation of his retiral benefits, despite which respondent No.5 District Treasury Officer, Alirajpur has recovered the alleged excess amount of Rs.52,646/- from his retiral benefits without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The recovery had been ordered on the ground that the petitioner had wrongly been paid. Counsel submitted that this High Court as well as the Apex Court had in several cases held that such a recovery could not be made and the recovery after retirement without any fault on the part of the employee concerned was contrary to the provisions of law. Counsel relied on Shyambabu Verma vs. Union of India & ors reported in 1994 (I) SCC 521 whereby the Apex Court held that the higher pay scale erroneously given to the petitioner since 1973 and the pay scale was reduced in the year 1984, the Court had directed that since the petitioner had received the higher pay scale due to no fault of the petitioners, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. Counsel also submitted that this High Court in the case of Suryanarayan Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No.1877 of 2005 decided on 04.10.2010 held thus:- “Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp. Counsel also submitted that this High Court in the case of Suryanarayan Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No.1877 of 2005 decided on 04.10.2010 held thus:- “Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18 has quashed the recovery in respect of an employee who was not responsible in the matter of pay fixation in similar circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shyambabu Verma Vs. Union of India & ors reported in 1994 (I) SCC 683, has also held that in case an employee was not at fault and there is no misrepresentation on the part of an employee, no order for recovery in such circumstances in the matter of grant of emoluments in excess to his entitlement, can be passed by the employer. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed. The Respondents are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,01,350/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 9.5% per annum till payment is made to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise of making payment shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 4. Further Counsel submitted that Division Bench of this Court recently passed an order in W.P. No.168 of 2012 (State of MP and others Vs. Omprakash s/o Daulat Singh Pure) held thus:- “7. We have gone through the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2012) 8 SCC 417 . We find that the Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed the directions contained in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Col. B.J. Akkara (2006) 11 SCC 709 as also in the case of Shyam Babu Verma 1994 (2) SCC 521 and Sahib Ram 1994(2) SCC 52 wherein the department is restrained from recovery of excess amount keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them. 8. In the present case also, the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement. 8. In the present case also, the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement. In our considered view, this if allowed to stand, would cause great hardship to a retired employee. 9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no case for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. 10. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” and the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed by the State against recovery and excess payment ordered by the State. 5. Counsel for the respondent per contra has resisted the claim of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner attained superannuation on 31.07.2007, however knowing fully well he continued in service for period of almost 8 months, and whereas the entry in his service book Annexure P/2 categorically indicates his date of birth and vide Annexure R/3. The petitioner has also given his consent for the recovery, admitting that the mistake had occurred and excess payment had been paid to him and in these circumstances Counsel stated that the petitioner cannot now go back on his admission and claim that the recovery be quashed. Counsel also placed reliance on Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others [ AIR 2012 SC 2951 ] whereby the Apex Court had directed that excess payment made to employees can be recovered and the recovery cannot be limited only to cases of fraud and misrepresentation since non-recovery of the payment would amount unjust enrichment. 6. On considering the above submissions, I find that the short point requires consideration is whether Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) would be applicable in the case of the present petitioner. I find that the Division Bench of this Court had considered the question in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Omprakash (supra) and categorically held that if the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are considered and if the beneficiary had retired then to avoid hardship to a retired employee, the recovery was not in accordance with the provisions of law and was liable to be quashed and should not be ordered. Omprakash (supra) and categorically held that if the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are considered and if the beneficiary had retired then to avoid hardship to a retired employee, the recovery was not in accordance with the provisions of law and was liable to be quashed and should not be ordered. Under the circumstances I find that the petitioner had worked for 8 months and was entitled to the salary on the basic principle that work cannot be taken from the employee without paying him any wages; more so when the petitioner rendered so many years of service without blemish; he would be entitled to the salary for the said period. 7. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed. The Respondents are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.52646/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 9.5% per annum till payment is made to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise of making payment shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Costs of Rs.1500/- be paid to the Counsel for the petitioner if certified.