Judgment : 1. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was employed as Superintendent when he retired from service on 30.11.2007 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was granted pension and other terminal benefits. Subsequently, the first respondent in the year 2011, suo motu came to the conclusion that pension was fixed erroneously and the same was sought to be revised and the alleged excess payment was also sought to be recovered. 3. The impugned order relating to suo motu revising the pension and ordering recovery was passed without notice and without hearing the petitioner. The same is not in dispute. Hence, on this simple ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Further, on merits also, I am of the view that the first respondent can very well refix the pension, but at the same time, he cannot order recovery for the wrong committed by him. The erroneous fixation was not at the instance of the petitioner. If the erroneous fixation was due to the error committed by the Department and not due to any misrepresentation by the petitioner, recovery cannot be ordered. It is a well settled position in law. 5. Hence, the impugned order, ordering recovery is set aside. However, the first respondent is at liberty to revise and refix the pension, for future for the petitioner, who is now aged 65 years. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.