JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the instant petition for writ, the petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved of challenged the Pension Payment Order dated 09.06.2014 (hereinafter referred as ‘PPO’) and the Communication/Order dated 24.07.2014, whereby the respondents have sought to recover a sum of Rs.5,76,190/- from the pension of the petitioner. 2. Shorn of unwarranted details, necessary facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner who was working as Constable (Driver) in RAC, First Battalion, opted for voluntary retirement from the services. Petitioner’s request was acceded to and he was superannuated on 01.03.2006. Subsequently, consequent upon conferment of benefits of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission i.e. Revised Pay Scale Rules 2008, the petitioner’s pension was revised by the respondent No.5 by way of passing an order dated 13.04.2009. As a result thereof petitioner’s pension stood revised to Rs.13,883/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 3. It has been stated by the petitioner that on 24.07.2014, when the petitioner wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- from his bank account, petitioner’s Banker informed him that the withdrawal from his account has been freezed, pursuant to instructions given by the respondents. Being aware about such freezing of the amount, he contacted to respondents, only to be informed that a revised PPO has been issued on 09.06.2014, by the Assistant Director (Pension) and Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur whereby petitioner’s pension has been re-determined and a sum of Rs.5,76,190/- has been found recoverable from him. 4. A Communication dated 24.07.2014 advising recovery of a sum of Rs.5,76,190/- with a copy to the petitioner came to be issued by the respondent No.5. It was indicated in the said Communication that the petitioner’s fixation and benefits of 6th Pay Commission were wrongly calculated and that petitioner’s pension should have been fixed at Rs.9,120/-, the petitioner has oppugned the said recovery order dated 24.07.2014 seeking to recover an amount of Rs.5,76,190/- from him. 5. Assailing the order impugned and challenging the proceedings for recovery, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that as far as fixation of petitioner’s pension is concerned, he has no grievance and grudges to the extent such fixation is made effective from the date prospective i.e. for the period after 24.07.2014. He however, maintained that the petitioner is deeply concerned, rather aggrieved of the recovery of the amount already paid to him, which he had received and utilized. Mr. He however, maintained that the petitioner is deeply concerned, rather aggrieved of the recovery of the amount already paid to him, which he had received and utilized. Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit vehemently argued that the recovery in question is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as admittedly no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 6. Mr. Rajpurohit contended that the fixation had been done by the respondents on 13.04.2009 as per their own calculation, petitioner had neither given any wrong or false information nor had he misrepresented. As such, there is no fault of the petitioner for which the recovery proceedings of the alleged excess amount can be legally initiated. 7. Mr. Akhilesh invited attention of the Court towards the Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’), more particularly, Rules 6 & 7 thereof and submitted that the stipulation regarding recovery has been provided in Rules 6 & 7, which suggests that the recovery can be effected only in the contingencies stipulated thereunder. He vehemently argued that there is no finding or allegation of existence of situations or circumstances mentioned in Rules 6 & 7, hence the recovery in question is wholly void without jurisdiction and contrary to law. To buttress his submission, Mr. Rajpurohit placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors 2015 (4) SCC 334 more particularly upon Paras 15 & 18 thereof. It would be worthwhile to reproduce Para 18 of the judgment which reads as under:- 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 8. Per contra, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Government Counsel referred to Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996, particularly proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 and argued that as far as the recovery of excess payment is concerned, the same is permissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996. He however, fairly conceded that if the recovery is to be made for an amount disbursed prior to two years, a notice after the concurrence of the Head of Department (Administration) and the Finance Department is required to be given to the person concerned. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Rajpurohit submitted that the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra) referred herein above is not applicable in the facts of the present case, in wake of the stipulation of recovery clearly spelled out in Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996. He submitted that in the teeth of the specific provision authorizing the recovery, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is of little avail to the petitioner. 9. In rejoinder, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Circular dated 17.08.2006, issued by the Secretary, Finance Department, which has been filed along with an affidavit of the petitioner. With the aid of the Circular, he apprised and urged that the State Government itself has taken an in principle decision, not to recover the amount of excess payment made to an employee, keeping in mind the mandate of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) referred herein above. 10. With the aid of the Circular, he apprised and urged that the State Government itself has taken an in principle decision, not to recover the amount of excess payment made to an employee, keeping in mind the mandate of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) referred herein above. 10. In addition thereto he relied upon the judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7645/2012 Ramesh Chandra Joshi Vs. AVVNL, Jaipur & Ors. delivered on 02.08.2016 and the judgment dated 01.09.2016 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2313/2014 Jeevraj Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. to contend that in terms of Rule 89, the petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% on the amount, illegally recovered by the respondents. 11. Dealing with the first argument first, this Court finds that the Communication/Order of recovery, impugned in the present writ petition is liable to be quashed on the count of violation of principles of natural justice alone. ‘Audi alteram partem’ is the first and foremost principle of natural justice. The respondents have not only revised the pension payable to the petitioner downwardly, but have ordered to recover the amount already paid to the petitioner; and prior to effecting such huge recovery, they have not accorded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such act of respondents is ex-facie and against the principles of natural justice, which have been held to be well embraced within the fold of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned dated 24.07.2014 is therefore, declared illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Secondly by way of the order impugned, the respondents have sought to revise the pension, to the petitioner’s detriment, which was determined as on 01.01.2007. As such, even if, it was required to be revised and recovery were to be made, the same cannot be effected without prior approval of the Head of the Department and concurrence of the Finance Department as mandated under the Rules of 1996. There is nothing on record to show that the procedure provided under Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996 was followed. As such the Communication/recovery order is in clear contravention to Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996, which are mandatory in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the procedure provided under Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996 was followed. As such the Communication/recovery order is in clear contravention to Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996, which are mandatory in nature. As such the recovery made and sought to be made from the petitioner is contrary to law. 13. As a result of the above discussion, I find that the pension payment order dated 09.06.2014 and the recovery order dated 24.07.2017 are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside hereby. 14. However, in a situation like this, if the Court finds that principles of natural justice have been infracted, this Court would have given liberty to the respondents to issue a notice and proceed to recover after following the requirement of Rule 91 of the Rules of 1996. But in the facts, peculiar to the present case this Court feels that such liberty should not and cannot be given to the respondents, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra) which in unequivocal terms postulates that the recovery of the payment made to a Government employee cannot be made until and unless there is an allegation of fraud and misrepresentation against the employee concerned, who has taken advantage of the higher payment on the basis of such misrepresentation made by him. 15. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the recovery in question is per-se contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as there is no such allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, much less finding. 16. There is yet another important fact to be reckoned, viz the State of Rajasthan, in tendem with the law so laid down by the Supreme Court, itself has taken a decision and a Circular dated 17.08.2016 has been issued by none else than the Finance Department of the State of Rajasthan, providing inter alia not to proceed with the recovery. 17. Petitioner’s case fall within all fours of the stipulations of the Circular, which is reproduced hereinfra: GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN FINANCE DEPARTMENT (RULES DIVISION) No. F.9(14)FD/Rules/2005/Pt. Jaipur, dated 17.08. 20l6 All Addl. Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to Government, All Heads of Departments. CIRCULAR Sub: Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government Servants/Pensioners. 17. Petitioner’s case fall within all fours of the stipulations of the Circular, which is reproduced hereinfra: GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN FINANCE DEPARTMENT (RULES DIVISION) No. F.9(14)FD/Rules/2005/Pt. Jaipur, dated 17.08. 20l6 All Addl. Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to Government, All Heads of Departments. CIRCULAR Sub: Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government Servants/Pensioners. Kind attention is invited to para 3(iii) of FD Circular of even number dated 22.07.2014 in which it has been mentioned that recovery must be made in all cases of over-payment barring few cases of extreme hardships. Whenever, there is a justifiable case of extreme hardship prior approval of the Finance Department must be obtained. This Circular was issued in compliance of the law declared by Courts and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC417. 2. The issue has subsequently come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in CA No. 11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11684 of 2012) wherein Hon'ble Court on 18-12-2014 decided a bunch of cases in which monetary benefits were given to employees in excess of their entitlement due to unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned competent authorities, in determining the emoluments payable to them, and the employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information /misrepresentation/fraud, which had led the concerned competent authorities to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The employees were as innocent as their employers in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments. 3. The issue that was required to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether all the private respondents, against whom an order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employees would be impermissible in law : (i) Recovery from employees belonging Grade Pay upto Rs 2800/-. (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employees right to recover. 4. As mentioned in para 3(iii) of FD Circular dated 22.07.2014 the cases of extreme hardships as summarized in para 3 for waiving of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government Servants/Pensioners may be examined by Administrative Department. Thereafter, concurrence of FD (G&T) be taken. (Naveen Mahajan) Secretary, Finance (Budget) 18. As a result of the analysis of extant facts and law, I find that the recovery in question is wholly illegal and valid and the same is declared as such. The order dated 24.07.2014 (Annex.4) issued by the respondent No.5 Sub- Treasury Officer, Phalodi is quashed. As a necessary concomitant of the quashment of recovery order dated 24.07.2014, the petitioner shall be entitled to get refund of the amount already recovered from him. 19. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner, pursuant to the Communication/Order dated 24.07.2014, within a period of three months from today. Such amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of recovery till the payment as ordered in judgments rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7645/2012 Ramesh Chandra Joshi Vs. AVVNL, Jaipur & Ors. delivered on 02.08.2016 and the judgment dated 01.09.2016 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2313/2014 Jeevraj Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 20. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above, however, without any order as to costs.