IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.833/1999 Dr. Kedar Nath Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 24/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.B. Srivastava for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Recovery Officer on 17.7.1995, whereby a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been ordered to be deducted from his retiral dues. The petitioner retired from the services of the respondent on 31.5.1995. He has also prayed for direction to the respondents to pay to him interest for delay of 8 months and 22 days in the payment of retiral dues including the amount of gratuity and pension. Shri V.B. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 17.7.19995 was passed without any notice to the petitioner inasmuch as the said order seeks to cancel the stepping up of the pay granted to the petitioner way back on 25.4.1981 on the erroneous assumption that it was wrongly granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that though the petitioner retired on 31.5.1995 but all his retiral dues were paid more than eight months thereafter. The Tribunal failed to appreciate all these aspects of the matter and has not made any mention whatsoever of the order of recovery. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition. It was argued that stepping up was wrongly granted to the petitioner on the assumption that his junior was in receipt of more pay than the petitioner and subsequently it was observed that no junior was getting more pay than the petitioner. This fact according to learned counsel was appreciated by the Tribunal as well and the action of the respondents was found to be justified. For the period of delay, it is argued that certain time was consumed in completing the papers and so soon the pension case was finalised, it was made. Reference is made to the order dated 24.8.1998 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the order of the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay holding that since the petitioner retired on 31.5.1995, he should have approached the Tribunal within time and filed appeal. On perusal of the order of Recovery Officer dated 17.7.1995, it appears that the stepping up of the pay granted to the petitioner vide order dated 25.4.1981 was withdrawn. But it is not under dispute that no notice was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the aforesaid order. The respondents have in reply to the writ petition have taken the plea that stepping up was wrongly granted to the petitioner because no junior of the petitioner was getting more pay than the petitioner. This fact has not been controverted even by the petitioner by filing the rejoinder. The fact remains that the respondents on their own stepped up the pay of the petitioner and this was not because of the misrepresentation and fraud attributed by him. Though the respondents could prospectively by rectifying the mistake but they could not make recovery of the amount. In any case, the recovery order was passed without any notice to the petitioner which is not sustainable in law. There is no denial to the fact that the retiral dues have been paid more than 8 months after his retirement. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The recovery of the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner is held to be illegal and the petitioner is held entitled to refund of the amount. Though the respondents are at liberty to prospectively correct the mistake, at the same time, the respondents are also directed to pay to the petitioner interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay in making payment of retrial dues. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/1