WP(C) 1391/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. T. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Mr. M.K. Mish ra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. I have also Mr. U.K. Nair, l earned Standing Counsel, Director of Pension. The petitioner who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuati on on 1.4.2004 has filed this writ petition making a grievance against reduction of pension on the ground of alleged overpayment of pay and allowances. Accordin g to the respondents, the petitioner was provided with two increments erroneousl y in the year 1987 and accordingly on submission of pension papers when the same was detected, a decision was taken to recover the amount which the petitioner h ad drawn on the basis of the said two increments. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,28,581/-. When the pension case of the petitioner was finalized by Annexure - 9 communicat ion dated 30.08.2005 addressed to the Treasury Officer, Nalbari by the Director of Pension, Assam it was intimated that the aforesaid amounts should be treated as overpayment. It was on that basis the monthly pension of the petitioner was fixed. While Mr. T. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there co uld not have been recovery of any amount inasmuch as the petitioner was granted the aforesaid two increments by the respondents themselves and not on the basis of any initiation or inducement made by the petitioner. On the other hand, both Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Education as well as Mr. Nair, learn ed Standing Counsel, Directorate of Pension submit that there was nothing wrong in fixing the monthly pension of the petitioner taking into account the two inc rements erroneously granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, when the decision was taken, the petitioner was not put to any kind of notice and everything was done behind his back. Although the respondents were of the opinion that the two increments were erroneously paid to the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to apprise the petitioner of t he same and then to take the decision after obtaining opinion and/or response fr om the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent authorities themselves having grante d the two increments to the petitioner, they could not have taken the impugned d ecision unilaterally. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decision as contained in the Annexur e - 7 letter dated 23.8.2005 stands interfered with. Since the petitioner has al ready drawn the amount on the basis of the two increments in question and has al so retired from service, there is no question of any recovery. However, it would be open for the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner appropriately upon due notice to the petitioner. In terms of the above direction now the consequential action that requires to be carried out by the respondents will follow and the same shall be done as expedi tiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.