JUDGMENT : A.D. MARIA CLETE, J. 1. Heard. 2. The original Petitioner is no more. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, he was aged about 86 years. After his demise, his legal representatives have been brought on record. They were also permitted to amend the prayer in the writ petition accordingly. 3. The original Petitioner was employed in the 4 th Respondent college, which is run by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and treated as an aided private college. In the matter of fixation of selection grade pay, an error had crept in while calculating the pay, as a result of which the Petitioner was allowed to draw excess salary. This excess payment was also reckoned for the purpose of pension after his retirement. Upon audit, an objection was raised with respect to the erroneous fixation and the resultant excess payment from the Government exchequer. It is pursuant to this recovery that the original Petitioner approached this Court. 4. The circumstances under which the recovery came to be effected have been set out in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, which reads as follows: “As per revised U.G.C. Scale, pension to the pensioners governed by UGC also been revised to the following effect. Since, the petitioner rendered only 2 years 7 months from 01.01.1986 to 31.07.1988 in the cadre of Lecturer Selection Grade in the time scale of pay of Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700 and there is a short fall of 5 months to complete 3 years, of service into the alleged 'time scale'. Accordingly, the petitioner is eligible to get pension as per Column No.1 as above. But, he has been wrongly sanctioned with the pension as mentioned in Column No.2, which is only applicable to the Lecturer Selection Grade with three years and above” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned recovery was effected without affording any notice to the original petitioner, either at the stage of audit or at the time of revising the pensionary benefits. He pointed out that even a copy of the audit objection was not furnished to the petitioner, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to respond or clarify. He pointed out that even a copy of the audit objection was not furnished to the petitioner, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to respond or clarify. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 , as well as G.O.(Ms.)No. 286, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.08.2018 issued by the State Government, learned counsel argued that the recovery from a retired employee, particularly after a long lapse of time and absent any fraud or misrepresentation, would be arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Article 14. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents contended that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade post and had not completed the minimum three years' service required to qualify for the higher pension under UGC norms. He referred to paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit to highlight that the pension was wrongly calculated as if the petitioner belonged to the category of “Lecturer Selection Grade with three years and above”, which was factually incorrect. He submitted that this was not a matter of interpretation but a question of eligibility, and that the recovery initiated upon audit was legally sound and justified. This Court has taken due note of these rival submissions and the materials placed on record. 7. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that although the petitioner was not served a copy of the audit objection or given a pre-recovery hearing, the error in pay fixation was purely mechanical and undisputed – a short fall of five months in qualifying service that directly impacted eligibility. In such circumstances, where the material facts are objectively verifiable and not susceptible to subjective explanation, the absence of notice, though precedurally improper, has not resulted in any real prejudice. The recovery, being based on ineligibility and not a discretionary reassessment does not attract the hardship exceptions invoked by the petitioner. Hence, the question of refund of the excess amount paid to the LRs of the original petitioner does not arise. The recovery, being based on ineligibility and not a discretionary reassessment does not attract the hardship exceptions invoked by the petitioner. Hence, the question of refund of the excess amount paid to the LRs of the original petitioner does not arise. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarkhand,  (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein it was observed as follows: “16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.” 8. While the decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarkhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 held that excess payments made without authority of law can be recovered regardless of fault, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 held that recovery from retired employees, or where the overpayment continued for over five years due to administrative mistake, would be iniquitous and therefore impermissible. This position was further affirmed and applied in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala,  2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 , where the Court restrained recovery sought nearly ten years after retirement, noting that such action would offend principles of fairness and proportionality. This position was further affirmed and applied in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala,  2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 , where the Court restrained recovery sought nearly ten years after retirement, noting that such action would offend principles of fairness and proportionality. However, in the present case, the excess payment stemmed from a misapplication of the eligibility criteria for pension fixation under UGC scales, and the recovery was initiated after audit objection. Hence, the present case does not attract the hardship-based protection and the principle in Chandi Prasad Uniyal squarely applies to this case. 9. Hence, the relief sought for refund cannot be granted. Hence, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.