1 Writ Petition No. 8025 / 2007 (s) 10.12.2011: Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sajeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner was working as Sub Engineer in the respondents department, he is retired from service. By the impugned order annexure P-7 dated 20.10.2006, petitioner's pay-fixation ordered on 1.4.1997 has been revised and on such revision certain recovery is ordered from pension payable to the petitioner. It is the case of respondents that when the pay-revision was ordered with effect from 1.4.1997 pay-fixation of the petitioner was incorrectly done and, therefore, revision and recovery is ordered. Even though petitioner has raised various grounds indicating that the revision has been ordered without hearing him, but the respondents have pointed out that the revision of pay ordered after completing 20 years of service was incorrectly done. It is the case of respondents that even though petitioner's pay was to be fixed in the lower scale of `2,000-2,900, but inadvertently his pay was fixed in the higher scale of `2,200-4,000 and, therefore, the error is corrected now by the impugned order. Even though, respondents may have a right to take steps for correction of any mistake, but once benefit was granted to the petitioner and when it is not established from 2 the record that petitioner was responsible for the mistake committed or mistake is result of any misappropriation or fraud on the part of petitioner, recovery of amount already paid cannot be ordered. Accordingly, in view of law laid down in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 recovery in pursuance to impugned order is unsustainable. That apart, before effecting the change, as a show- cause notice was not given to the petitioner, respondents should undertake the process of pay-fixation of the petitioner in accordance to law. Change of pay-scale after 20 years, that also without hearing the petitioner was not permissible. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. Quashing the recovery ordered in pursuance to impugned order, respondents are directed to hear the petitioner and after hearing him pass fresh order for refixation of pay. However, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner even after re- fixation in the lower scale in view of the law laid down in the case of Sahib Ram (supra) amount if recovered be refunded. With the aforesaid petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-