ORDER 1. The petitioner who is working as Training Officer has approached this Court challenging the recovery order dated 14.7.2020. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance upon order dated 17.1.2020 passed in WP No. 24265/2019 in the case of Seema Saxena v. State of MP and others and order dated 21.1.2020 passed in W.P. No. 24264/2019 in the case of Gyaneshwari Shrivastava v. Ministry of General Administration and others has submitted that similar orders in respect of the employees of same respondent/institute were passed wherein this Court has granted limited relief setting aside the recovery of interest part but permitting the recovery of principal amount. He further submits that similar order dated 13.9.2017 was passed in W.P. No. 826/2017 which was subject matter of writ appeal No. 120/2018 and the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 16.8.2018. He also submits that recovery was to commence from July 2020. 3. Learned counsel for State though has opposed the writ petition but has not disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 4. The impugned order reveals that the recovery has been directed against the petitioner on account of incorrect extension of benefit of time scale of pay for the period 2006 to 2015. As per the calculation enclosed with the impugned order, the interest amount is Rs. 1,63,110/- and the principal amount is Rs. 1,22,488/-. 5. Having regard to the fact that the benefit was extended to petitioner not on account of any misrepresentation by him but it appears to be a bonafide mistake and also taking into account the similar orders which have been passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Seema Saxena and Gyaneshwari Shrivastava (supra), I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed and recovery of interest is set aside by permitting the respondents to recover the principal amount which has been paid in excess to the petitioner.