ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 02.07.2018 (Annex.5), 30.01.2019 (Annex.6) and 13.07.2022 (Annex.7), whereby, the pay fixation of the petitioner has been revised and recovery order has been issued. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner after rendering the service in the respondent- department retired from the post of Deputy Director. After his retirement, the respondents granted him promotion on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture/Water Shed Development and Soil Conversation Department) w.e.f. 2008-2009. The pay fixation orders were issued and the petitioner was getting the monthly pension on the PPO issued by the respondents. The respondents recalled the order of promotion issued to the petitioner on the post of Joint Director on account of the fact that there was no vacant post of Joint Director in the year 2008-2009. As the promotion order of the petitioner was withdrawn, therefore, the respondents have issued an order dated 30.01.2019 for re-fixation of pay of the petitioner and recovery thereafter. As a consequence, a revised PPO has also been issued. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while discharging his duties in the respondent-Department never misrepresented any facts and the department on its own had held the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Joint Director. He further submits that since the petitioner had retired in the year 2008, therefore, the benefits were granted to the petitioner after his retirement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not furnished any incorrect information to the respondents- department for getting the promotion on the post of Joint Director. He further submits that since the department after holding the review DPC has promoted the petitioner on the post of Joint Director and thereafter, the Pension Payment Order has been issued, therefore, the promotion of the petitioner cannot be withdrawn and no recovery can be effected without issuing a show cause notice him. He, therefore, submits that the action of the respondents in passing the orders dated 02.07.2018 (Annex.5), 30.01.2019 (Annex.6) and 13.07.2022 (Annex.7) is absolutely arbitrary, illegal so as to violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. He, therefore, submits that the action of the respondents in passing the orders dated 02.07.2018 (Annex.5), 30.01.2019 (Annex.6) and 13.07.2022 (Annex.7) is absolutely arbitrary, illegal so as to violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 4989/2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5918/2024) (Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.), decided on 04.04.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the orders dated 02.07.2018 (Annex.5), 30.01.2019 (Annex.6) and 13.07.2022 (Annex.7) may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there was no vacancy of the Joint Director in the year 2008- 2009, therefore, the department has committed an error while holding DPC and promoting the petitioner on the post of Joint Director. Learned counsel fairly submits that the petitioner has not misrepresented before the department or has not secured the promotion after furnishing incorrect facts. Learned counsel further submits that since the promotion was granted erroneously to the petitioner, therefore, the same is being withdrawn at this stage and as a consequence, the pay fixation of the petitioner has been revised and recovery order has been issued. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that before issuing the recovery notice, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. The admitted facts in the present writ petition show that while working in the respondent department, the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Director in the year 2008. However, after superannuation of the petitioner, the department conducted the Departmental Promotional Committee for the post of Joint Director (Agriculture/Water Shed Development and Soil Conversation Department) for the year 2008-2009. Since the DPC recommended the name of the petitioner, he was promoted on the post of Joint Director. Thus, the Pension Payment Order and other benefits for the post of Joint Director (Agriculture/Water Shed Development and Soil Conversation Department) were extended to the petitioner. Since the DPC recommended the name of the petitioner, he was promoted on the post of Joint Director. Thus, the Pension Payment Order and other benefits for the post of Joint Director (Agriculture/Water Shed Development and Soil Conversation Department) were extended to the petitioner. However, the department, after a lapse of about nine years, reconsidered the matter and found that there was no post of Joint Director available in the respondent department for the year 2008-2009, therefore, the promotional order of the petitioner on the post of Joint Director was recalled and as a consequence, the revised pay fixation order as well as revised PPO was passed by the respondents. 11. In pursuance of the revised PPO having been issued, recovery is being effected from the petitioner. The entire action of the respondents has been initiated without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in getting the order of promotion and issuing the consequential PPO, the same cannot be withdrawn without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. It is strange that after a period of nine years, the department has noticed this fact that the petitioner has wrongly been given promotion on the post of Joint Director in the year 2008-2009 when there was no post in existence. The petitioner has never misrepresented before the respondent department and has not furnished any incorrect information, therefore, he cannot be made liable in the present case. The recovery order issued against the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing, is not sustainable more particularly in view of the detailed facts mentioned above. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo (supra) has held as under:- “9. This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or 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, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.” 13. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 02.07.2018 (Annex.5), 30.01.2019 (Annex.6) and 13.07.2022 (Annex.7) are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed not to make any recovery from the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 30.01.2019 (Annex.6). 14. However, the respondents will be free to take appropriate action for withdrawing the promotional order issued to the petitioner for promotion on the post of Joint Director in accordance with law. 15. The stay petition(s) as well as other pending misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.