1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2881 of 1999 Majeed Khan s/o Amir Khan, age 60 years, Occ. Pensioner, r/o. Sadar Bazar, Tq. Ambejogai, District Beed, Since deceased, through LRS. 1. Shahjehan Begum w/o Majeed Khan, age 50 years, Occ: Household, r/o. c/o Shaikh Zakir, Plot No.16, Jaswantpura, near Mahanagar Function Hall, Aurangabad. (widow). 2. Khan Ajjaz Ahmed s/o Majeed Khan, Age 28 years, Occ. student, r/o as above. (son) 3. Khan Imtiyaz Ahmad s/o Majeed Khan, Age 26 years, Occ. student, r/o as above. (son) 4. Rana Kausar d/o Majeed Khan, Age 24 years, Occ. student, r/o as above. (daughter) ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, through Govt.Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. The Executive Engineer, Division No.I & II, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 5. The Accountant General, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGP, for respondent State. ... CORAM:B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE:18-8-2010 *** PER COURT : (Per S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Overseer with the District Legal Board, Beed. Thereafter, vide order dt.10th August, 1966, he was promoted as a Overseer and was given the deemed date of 6.11.1963. Thereafter, the successor Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, changed the deemed date of promotion from 6.11.1963 to the date of issuance of the order i.e. 10th August, 1966. The petitioner, thereafter, superannuated. After the petitioner retired from the services, the respondent ordered 3 recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.1,71,817/- without holding any departmental inquiry on the ground that the deemed date, which was given earlier, was wrongfully given. 2. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was given the promotion orders and higher pay scale was paid to him on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The Apex Court, in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others ( (2009) 3 SCC 475 has held that when wrong pay scale is paid to an employee and the same is not attributable to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee then the recovery should not be ordered on the ground of equity. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court (supra). As such, we allow the petition and make Rule absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt.7.11.1997, however, with no orders as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE agp/2881-99wp