JUDGMENT : 1. By means of the instant writ petition, the Union of India has approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing an original application filed by the respondent and setting aside an order dated 17.06.2021 by which recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,54,014/-only was ordered to be made from the gratuity payable to the respondent. The order dated 17.06.2021 mentions that the respondent had been transferred on 29.07.2008 as per his own request and his salary had erroneously been fixed at Rs. 72,100/-in place of Rs. 66,000/-. The salary paid in excess consequent to a wrong fixation made in the year 2008, has been sought to be recovered from the respondent by means of the order dated 17.06.2021. 2. The respondent has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021 and the order dated 17.06.2021 was passed when the respondent was on the verge of his retirement. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed before this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttrakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) v. Government of India and Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 709 , the excess payment made due to wrong/ irregular pay fixation can always be recovered. 4. In Col. B. J. Akkara (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme court held as follows:- “This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) Supp 1 SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director (1997) 6 SCC 139 : (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. 28. (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. 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery 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. 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. In Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if 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. 58. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp 1 SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 , Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 , V. Gangaram v. Director (1997) 6 SCC 139 , Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709 , Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar (2006) 11 SCC 492 Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur (2000) 10 SCC 99 . 59. 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. 6. 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. 6. In the present case, wrong fixation was made in July, 2008 whereas recovery order has been passed after 13 years on 17.06.2021 while the respondent was on the verge of retirement and he retired immediately thereafter on 30.06.2021. 7. The Central Administrative Tribunal has referred to an Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Central Government, which provides that: - “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 recover, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employer 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. (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 for outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016, issued by the Petitioner itself, recovery of amount paid in excess cannot be ordered after 13 years since fixation of salary. 9. We are of the view that since order dated 17.06.2021 mentions that the respondent had been transferred on 29.07.2008 as per his own request and his salary had erroneously been fixed at Rs. 72,100/-in place of Rs. 9. We are of the view that since order dated 17.06.2021 mentions that the respondent had been transferred on 29.07.2008 as per his own request and his salary had erroneously been fixed at Rs. 72,100/-in place of Rs. 66,000/- in the year 2008 and the salary paid in excess for a long period of thirteen years consequent to a wrong fixation made in the year 2008, has been sought to be recovered from the respondent by means of the order dated 17.06.2021, when he was on the verge of retirement and soon thereafter, the respondent has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021, we are of the view that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and Col. B.J. Akkara (Supra), as also to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Central Government. 10. Therefore, we do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction. 11. The Writ Petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. However, there will be no order as to costs.