WPSB No. 958/2002 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala J. Mr. S. K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk and was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 1968.The pay scale of the petitioner was revised w.e.f. 1st July, 1996 and based on the revised payscale, the petitioner was being paid the revised salary, which he continued to receive till he retired on 31st December, 2000. By the impugned order dated 9.4.2002 and 19.6.2002, the respondents have issued a recovery order to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from his pension on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled for the revised pay scale fixed by the respondents in the year 1996. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition in which an interim order dated 5.8.2002 was passed directing that the recovery will not be made from the petitioner. In the case of Bindeshwari Sahai Srivastava Vs. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U.P. and others reported in (1996)4 UPLBEC 2634, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that if the respondents had fixed a wrong fixation of the pay scale ,which was detected after the retirement of an employee and which fixation of the pay scale was done not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation being played on the part of the petitioner, in that event, the employer could not recover any part of the salary from the petitioner after retirement from his pension. Similar view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs Union of India and others reported in (1994)2 S.C.C. 521. The said judgments are squarely applicable to the present case. There is no whisper in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit that any fraud or misrepresentation was played by the petitioner in getting the revised pay scale from the year 1996. In the absence of these averments, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 12.5.2010 Nishant