D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) FROM the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are that the petitioner was granted increments in his salary by the Respondent Board in between 1980 -1992. It was detected much later, almost a few months prior to the date of the petitioner's retirement, that such increments which were given to the petitioner, was erroneous in as much as, the petitioner did not deserve the increments on account of the fact that he had not acquired the eligibility for grant of increments which could be given only to such employees who had passed the Hindi Noting Examination. The petitioner continued to avail the benefits of the purported excess payments for more than 15 years. However, from August 2003, recovery at the rate of Rs. 2125/ -per month began to be made by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner's contention is that such recovery was commenced without giving any prior notice to him and without assessing by way of any inquiry, that the purported excess amount was availed by the petitioner by practicing fraud and misrepresentation.;