R.R.K. Trivedi, R.K. Singh, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.2.1997, Annexure -4 to the writ petition, by which a direction has been issued to recover Rs. 34,939, 60 p. from the petitioner which had been wrongly paid to him from 1.7.1982. It has also been said in the order that pay fixation was wrongly done which has been again fixed and the mistake has been corrected. It is not disputed that petitioner retired from service on 31.12.1996.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 13996 of 1995 has held that if any amount on account of wrong fixation has been paid and it was continued to be paid to the employee for number of years, the amount cannot be recovered from the employee after retirement, if no fraud or misrepresentation was involved in fixing the salary. A copy of the judgment dated 28.2.1996, passed in the aforesaid writ petition has been filed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that though initially salary was fixed but pay fixation was changed on account of representation made by the petitioner. A copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure -1 to the counter affidavit. It was only on his representation that the salary was enhanced from Rs. 1010.00 to Rs. 1050.00 and in such circumstances the amount has rightly been directed to be recovered and the case decided by the Division Bench and relied on by the petitioner is distinguishable.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. However, in our opinion, the judgment of the Division Bench dated 28.2.1996 is squarely applicable in the present case also. It is true that the petitioner made a representation requesting for refixation of his salary. However, in the application he has mentioned two Government Orders for the relief claimed. It is difficult to infer from this application that any fraud or misrepresentation was made by the petitioner. He could have misunderstood the G.O. for claiming the relief but it was for the respondents to correctly work out the salary payable to the petitioner and if any mistake had been done, now the amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner, as for the mistake the petitioner could not be held responsible. In our opinion, the Division Bench judgment helps the petitioner in the circumstances. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.2.1997, Annexure -4 to the writ petition, is quashed. However, it shall be open to the respondents to fix responsibility for this over -payment of salary to the petitioner by initiating regular proceedings and the respondents may recover the amount of loss caused to State. There will be no order as to costs.;