JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 1644 dated 06.11.2012 issued by the respondent No. 5, whereby an amount of Rs. 2,69,567/- has been sought to be recovered from the family pension of the petitioner along with interest and also for a direction upon the respondents to restrain themselves from recovering the same. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a widow of late Md. Wahihuddin who was an employee of the respondent-board and had subscribed to Family Pension Scheme as per which the deductions were made towards the employee’s contribution for the pension fund. Pursuant to the order of Director of Accounts, JSEB, pension payment order (herein after to be referred as PPO) of the petitioner was issued in terms of which Rs. 5259/- with other admissible allowances was payable to the petitioner from 06.03.2004 to 15.01.2009 and thereafter, Rs. 3171/- with other admissible allowances with effect from 16.01.2009 till date of remarriage. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner started receiving her family pension as per the PPO. It is a specific case of the petitioner that she is an illiterate lady and cannot read or understand English or Hindi. The further case of the petitioner is that she received a letter No. 1644 dated 06.11.2012 issued by the respondent No. 5 whereby an amount of Rs. 2,69,567/- has been directed to be deposited by way of demand draft in favour of DDA (Sectt.) by 15.11.2012 alternatively, the amount shall be recovered from the PRC arrears and monthly family pension with interest on the ground that excess payment to the tune of Rs. 2,69,567/- has been made to the petitioner. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned demand letter and as per the settled law no recovery can be made from the family pension. He further submits that the petitioner’s financial condition is not good and the family pension is her only source of income and as such, a huge recovery and that also due to fault of the respondent-board is highly arbitrary and against the principle as laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih. He further submits that the petitioner’s financial condition is not good and the family pension is her only source of income and as such, a huge recovery and that also due to fault of the respondent-board is highly arbitrary and against the principle as laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the instant case wherein it has been stated inter-alia that a person is not entitled to any wrongful enrichment for the mistake committed by other person and as such, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the letter No. 1644 dated 06.11.2012 cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the recovery has been done within 4 years as such the ratio as laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the instant case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that all of a sudden the impugned demand letter has been issued to the petitioner and no prior notice was ever issued to her. Further, it is not the case of respondent board that the excess payment has been made due to any fraud or misrepresentation committed by the petitioner rather the excess payment has been made due to clerical error. 7. In the case of Krishna Ballave Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2013 (1) AIR Jhr. R-153, wherein this court has held that without issuing notice to the petitioner, if there is no misrepresentation or fraud laid by the employee, the amount already paid even though by mistake cannot be recovered. Para 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein-below: “6. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court as well as by several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if there is no misrepresentation or fraud played by the employee, the amount, already paid, even though by mistake, cannot be recovered.” 8. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerges that if excess payment is not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and such payment was made by the employer due to inadvertence, recovery of such excess payment cannot be made. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerges that if excess payment is not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and such payment was made by the employer due to inadvertence, recovery of such excess payment cannot be made. Further as per the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , any recovery from pension of an employee belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service) were held to be impermissible. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the judicial pronouncement the impugned demand letter deserves to quash. As a result thereof, the letter No. 1644 dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent No. 5, whereby an amount of Rs. 2,69,567/- has been sought to be recovered from the family pension of the petitioner along with interest is quashed and set aside. It is further directed that if any amount is recovered from the petitioner, the respondent-board would refund the said amount along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of refund. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The writ application is accordingly allowed.