THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23230 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The respondents in O.A.No.734 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, seek to challenge the order of the Tribunal, dated 05-08-2009. The aforesaid O.A. was filed by the respondent herein questioning the action of the petitioners herein in seeking to recover a sum of Rs.18,828/- on the ground that his pay was fixed incorrectly. Facts in brief are that the respondent joined into service initially as Upper Division Clerk during the year 1969 and was later promoted as Head Clerk, Supervisor Grade-II. He passed departmental examination for the post of Income Tax Inspector during the year 1978 and on his representation, dated 04-10-1983, he was granted two advance increments in the pay scale of Rs.550 to 750. As per the instructions of the Department, dated 17-08-1983, his pay was accordingly refixed granting two advance increments and he continued to get the said benefit throughout his service. Later, when he was working as Income Tax Officer, his pay was sought to be refixed by withdrawing the said advance increments earlier granted by proceedings of refixation, which are impugned in the O.A. The allowances paid to the respondent from 15-07-1978 to 30-12-1990 was sought to be recovered by proceedings of the Zonal Accounts Officer, Hyderabad, and consequential proceedings of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1 Kakinada, dated 30-01-1991 and 31-03-1991 respectively. In fact, the respondent retired in the year 2005 and in the meanwhile, he made several representations against withdrawal of advance increments. In order to get retirement benefits, the respondent was forced to pay the said amount of Rs.18,828/- on 26- 07-2005. The said proceedings of the petitioners in withdrawing the increments was questioned by the respondent in the present O.A. The Tribunal heard both sides and was of the view that since the respondent was granted advance increments in terms of the departmental instructions referred to above, withdrawal of the same after so many years was wholly unjustified. The Tribunal also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in SAHIB RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[1] and allowed the said O.A. on the ground that no case is established by the petitioners herein for justifying withdrawal of increments after so many years. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the amount recovered from the respondent herein shall be paid back to him with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till actual refund. The said order is questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel, who has reiterated his contentions and tried to justify that merely because the respondent had passed the departmental examination, he was not entitled to two advance increments as per the policy of the Government and the said error was corrected subsequently when the audit authorities noticed the aforesaid excess payment to the respondent. We have perused the record and we are of the view that the said grant of two advance increments to the respondent was made by the petitioners after considering his representation and after finding that the same is permissible as per the instructions of the Department, dated 17-08-1983 mentioned above. The respondent has neither mis- represented nor mislead the administration, when the said advance increments were granted. In the absence of any such misrepresentation or misleading of the Department by the respondent, it cannot be said that the respondent is required to refund the excess amount paid to him. The decision of the Supreme Court (supra), which was relied upon by the Tribunal, squarely applies to the case on hand and the said decision is also reiterated in the later decision of the Apex Court in ABDUL QADIR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR[2]. The facts and circumstances of this case are fully covered by the aforesaid two decisions and therefore, we do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Tribunal had granted two months time to the petitioners to refund the amount of Rs.18,828/-, failing which, they shall pay interest at 12% p.a. In the circumstances of the case, since the petitioners had questioned the said order of the Tribunal in this writ petition, we are inclined to extend time by a further period of two months from today for payment of the aforesaid amount, failing which, interest as directed by the Tribunal shall be payable by the petitioners. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 03-11-2009 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday (B/o) Prv [1] 1995 SCC (L & S) 248 [2] 2009 (3) SCC 475