JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to Annexure-4, by which it was ordered to recover an amount of Rs.3,92,845/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for setting aside the order of recovery dated 26.05.2016, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It has also been prayed for a direction upon the respondents to restore the original pension and refund the amount already recovered from the pension as well as gratuity of the petitioner. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 01.06.1973 and subsequently, promoted to the post of ASI on 03.10.1981 and thereafter, to the post of SI on 01.09.2009, on being found suitable and fit for promotion to aforesaid posts. The petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2014, on attaining the age of 60 years. It is the further case of the petitioner that the last pay drawn by him was Rs.23,980/- and accordingly, he is entitled for pension at the basic rate of Rs.11,990/- w.e.f. 01.06.2014. The respondent No. 2 sent the service book of the petitioner along with pension papers to the Accountant General on 27.09.2014, for taking necessary action with respect to payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. On scrutiny of the service book and pension papers, the respondent No. 4, Accountant General found fixation of pay to be erroneous resulting in excess payment of govt. money to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he had not received the pension amount, the petitioner approached the respondent-authorities for payment of pension and gratuity but he failed to get any satisfactory reply. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the entire service period of the petitioner remained unblemished and satisfactory without any complaint from any corner but after retirement, he is forced to run from pillar to post for getting retiral benefits, for which he is legally entitled for. Meanwhile, upon irregularity being found by the Accountant General, the respondent again sent Pension Pay Order of the petitioner revising his pension at the basic rate of Rs.10,945/- w.e.f. 01.06.2014 to the Treasury Officer, Bokaro. Meanwhile, upon irregularity being found by the Accountant General, the respondent again sent Pension Pay Order of the petitioner revising his pension at the basic rate of Rs.10,945/- w.e.f. 01.06.2014 to the Treasury Officer, Bokaro. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 26.05.2016 informed the Treasury Officer, Bokaro that vide Dhanbad Rail District Order No. 1059/15, necessary amendments/corrections were made in the pay-fixation of the petitioner and it was found that Rs.3,92,845/- was paid in excess to the petitioner, as a result of wrong fixation of pay and asked the respondent No. 4 to make payment of remaining pension and gratuity amount to the petitioner after deducting the said excess amount. 4. The petitioner received the pension and gratuity after 2 years and 4 months of his retirement and that too after making the deduction causing financial hardship to the innocent employee. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before the respondent No. 2, on 16.11.2016 requesting for restoring the original pension and to refund the recovered amount but the same went into vein. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 5. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of recovery was passed without issuing any show-cause notice, in complete violation of natural justice and without following any procedure as enumerated in the Pension Rules. The act of the respondent-authorities is arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and amounts to deprivation of right to life. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery is permissible where there is no allegation of misrepresentation and fraud being committed by the petitioner for getting the same and as such, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, as excess payment flowed to him consequent upon mistake committed by the concerned respondents. Learned counsel lastly submits that action of the respondent-authorities is violative of fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 6. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ]; (II) Smt. Normi Topno vs the State Of Jharkhand & Ors., [ 2008 (1) JCR 381 Jhr.]. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. 6. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ]; (II) Smt. Normi Topno vs the State Of Jharkhand & Ors., [ 2008 (1) JCR 381 Jhr.]. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel submits that pension of the petitioner has been revised on the basis of objection raised by the Accountant General that the petitioner was getting higher pay-scale than what he was entitled to. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was very much aware of the objection raised by the Accountant General, which is also apparent from Annexures-2 and 3 of the writ petition and it cannot be said that the decision of revising the pension was taken behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that excess payment was adjusted and deducted by the Treasury Officer, Bokaro, which was also within the knowledge of the petitioner. However, learned counsel very fairly concedes that no proceeding was initiated or pending against the petitioner in his entire period of service and petitioner has never misrepresented for getting the excess payment. Learned counsel lastly submits that for the reasons stated above, in view of the judgment passed in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (supra) recovery is not permissible but the error in fixation of pension can be rectified as and when it is detected to be erroneous by the respondents. 8. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the pay-fixation has been done by the respondents themselves following the cardinal principles of law. The petitioner has not misrepresented anything on his side and as such, punishment of recovery of excess paid amount cannot be imposed upon him that too after two years of his retirement. It is not desirable from the respondents to recover any amount which has already been paid to the petitioner on the ground of wrong fixation of pay. No notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner neither any objection was raised regarding wrong fixation of pay till the date of his retirement. It is not desirable from the respondents to recover any amount which has already been paid to the petitioner on the ground of wrong fixation of pay. No notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner neither any objection was raised regarding wrong fixation of pay till the date of his retirement. It was only after the retirement of petitioner and in view of objection raised by the Accountant General, the respondents have revised the pension of the petitioner and by the impugned letter dated 26.05.2016, recovery order has been issued, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The aforesaid issue is no more res-integra in view of catena of decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709 has held that, “recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances of an employee is not permissible if: (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.” Dealing with the similar issue of recovery after retirement of an employee, the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Smt. Normi Topno vs the State Of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) JCR 381 Jhr., has held as under:- “After retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee and as such no recovery can be made from the retrial benefits without following procedure of law as provided under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Hence, without fulfilling the conditions under Rule 43(b) and without cancelling the order of promotion after enquiry by the competent authority, pension and other retiral benefits cannot be recovered that too without giving opportunity to the retired employee and without giving any finding with reference to the mis-representation or misconduct on the part of the concerned employee or any other employee merely on the recommendation of audit objection.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , has held as under: “Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made." In case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “We may in this respect refer to the judgment of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra) where this Court after referring to Shyam Babu Verma case, Sahib Ram case (supra) and few other decisions held as follows: Such relief, restraining recovery back of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion, to relieve the employees, from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A Government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, Courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” Further, in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-18, has held 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, summarise 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.” 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and the judicial pronouncements, the order of recovery dated 26.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and set aside. Needless to say that if any amount has been recovered/adjusted from pension or gratuity, the same should be refunded to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the amount has not been recovered, the same shall not be recovered in future. 11. So far wrong fixation of pay-scale is concerned, the respondents are at liberty to fix the pension of the petitioner as per his entitlement and prevailing rules, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the payment of revised pension shall be started immediately thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed.