1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CAW NO. 2420/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 256 OF 2010 (Shri Bajranglal L. Jaiswal vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 27, 2011. Heard Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Meghe, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Seen application. Perused the judgment dated 19 & 20 July 2011 delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 407 of 2010. The controversy in present petition is identical. The mistake in fixation which occurred in 1999 was communicated to the petitioners in that matter in December 2009. The fixation was done from 01.01.1994. In this situation, after considering the case law and the facts, the Division Bench did not permit recovery from 01.01.1994 till mistake was brought to the notice of parties i.e. till December 2009. The petition was thus partly allowed. The error in fixation was allowed to be corrected 2 prospectively. The Division Bench of this Court has accepted that while confirming benefit of assured promotion scheme, the petitioners before it were to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and they were erroneously fixed in the pay scale of Rs.7450- 11500. Here, the fixation of petitioner is from 01.01.1996. By communication dated 11.11.2009, the recovery was proposed pointing out error in that fixation. We, therefore, find that said judgment is squarely attracted in present matter. Shri Kankale, learned AGP has attempted to point out that an undertaking was given by the petitioner. He is relying upon the judgment in the case of Sadanand vs. Reserve Bank of India, reported at 2011 (1) Mh. L.J. 207. The said judgment as also judgment in the case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India & Ors., reported at 2006 (11) SCC 709 are looked into by the earlier judgment of this Court (supra). In this situation, here only distinguishing feature is, the error has been brought to the notice of the petitioner after his superannuation. It is, therefore, obvious that no recovery from him is permissible. As per earlier orders of this Court dated 3 18th June 2010, the petitioner had deposited the amount sought to be recovered from him with Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has forwarded the same to Respondents No. 2 & 3. The respondents are, therefore, directed to return that amount to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. If the amount is not returned within the said period, it will carry interest @ 8% per annum. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.