WP(C) 9118/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr A Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr UK Goswami, the learned standing counsel for the Education Department. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2003 issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Juria Nagaon (respondent No.4) directing the deduction of Rs.1000/- PM from the salaries of the petitioners in 71 (seventy o ne) instalments, which are to be deposited in the Office for depositing under He ad 0202 w.e.f. September, 2003. This Court by the order dated 14.11.2003 had p assed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order. The case of the State respondents is that the petitioners passed their Junior Basic Training on 04.02.1989 and as such they became entitled to time scale of Rs. 1185-2395 w .e.f. 04.02.1989, but at the time of fixation of the pay scale, their pay were w rongly fixed at Rs. 1225/- PM w.e.f. 01.01.1989 instead of Rs. 1185/- PM w.e.f. 04.02.1989 and as such the respondent No.4 had to deduct the excess payments rec eived by them. On going through the writ petition and the affidavit-in-oppositio n filed by the respondents, there is no statement indicating that the erroneous fixation of pay scale of the petitioners was attributable to the act of commissi on or omission on the part of the petitioners. The question of recovery of exces s payment came up for consideration in Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors-Vs-State of Biha r and Ors reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475. The three Judges Bench in that case invoked the equitable principles of prohibit ing such recovery where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of th e employees and the excess payment has been made by the employer by applying a w rong principles for calculating the pay scale or the basic a particular interpre tation of rule or order, which is undoubtedly found to be erroneous. The relevant portions of the Judgment are found at Paragraphs 57-59 which are in the following terms: - 57. This Court in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery o f excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b ) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principles for calculating the pay/allowances or on the basis of a particular interpretati on of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by Courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the emp loyees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employees had knowledge that the payment rec eived was in excess of what was due or wrong paid, or in cases where the error i s detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being i n the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on amount paid in excess. See Sa hib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V Gangaram v. Director, Col. BJ Akkara (Retd) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellan ts also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more th an what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bo na fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong i nterpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bih ar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Ke eping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to av oid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be m ade . On the authority of the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court, this writ petition does not survive for consideration and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 20.09.2003 is hereby quashed. Let a writ of man damus issue directing the State respondents not to deduct any amount from the sa laries of the petitioners for recovery of the excess amounts already drawn by th em. No costs.