CWP (T) No. 16636 of 2008 13.10.2009 Present: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 10.11.1998 Annexure A-8, the following recoveries were ordered to be made from the petitioner:- “ (a) The amount of overpayment w.e.f. 4.2.75 to 5.5.1982 is waived off in accordance with Govt. instruction contained in letter No. Fin (C ) B(7) 2/82-II, dated 21.9.1987. (b) The amount of overpayment from 6.5.82 to 16.5.1996 will be waived of subject to the approval of the Govt. (c) The amount of overpayment from 17.5.1996 onwards be recovered from the applicant”. It has been submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner so far item No. (b) & (c ) are concerned. The petitioner has retired in the year 2002. 2. The pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 178/- by the respondents vide Annexure A-2 dated 3.1.1979. It is not the case of the respondents that the pay was fixed on the basis of concealment of any fact or mis-representation made by the petitioner. The pay of the petitioner in supersession of order dated 3.1.1979 was ultimately fixed at Rs. 170/- vide order dated 17.5.1996 Annexure A-3. The petitioner earlier filed Original Application No. 849 of 1996 in the erstwhile Tribunal which was decided on 10.12.1996, the Tribunal quashed the order dated 17.5.1996 Annexure A-3. Thereafter, the respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner and passed order dated 10.11.1998, Annexure A-8 and fixed again the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 170/-. - 2 - 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that pay of the petitioner which was fixed at Rs.178/- on 3.1.1979 was reduced to Rs. 170/- on 10.11.1998 after about two decades. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even after 1998 till retirement petitioner continued to get pay on the basis of pay fixed at Rs. 178/- and not on the basis of pay fixed at Rs. 170/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the claim of petitioner only to the extent that recovery may not be made from petitioner of the amount already paid to the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has not disputed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pay of petitioner was fixed by the respondents of their own and not at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has retired about 7 years ago. It has not been urged on behalf of respondents that Government has refused to waive of overpayment from 6.5.1982 to 16.5.1996. Keeping in view the difference of pay of Rs.8/- only and period of alleged overpayment and further fact that the petitioner was a low paid employee, I am satisfied that in the interest of justice now after the retirement of the petitioner the recovery should not be made from the petitioner more particularly when the pay of the petitioner was fixed by the respondents of their own and the petitioner had received the salary from 1979 onwards on the basis of his pay fixed at Rs. 178/-. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner on account of re-fixation of his salary vide Annexure A-8. No other point was urged from either side. The petition stands disposed of. October 13, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.