THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 18656 of 1998 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order in O.A. No. 643 of 1998 dated 26.5.198 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and the proceedings No. 56-66-PAT dated 3.4.1998 issued by 1st respondent including the consequential proceedings No.TA/LC/5/433/98 dated 26.5.1998 of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the respondents not to recover the arrears of pay and allowances already paid to the petitioners up to the date of delivery of the judgment by the Supreme Court dated 12.9.1997. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. C. Vani Reddy, learned standing counsel for BSNL appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The case of the petitioners is that as the juniors were drawing more pay than the seniors, they sought for stepping up of their pay and their pay was stepped up and most of the Tribunals in different States have uniformly passed the orders confirming the stepping up of their pay. Subsequently, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8658 of 1996 and batch held that the said stepping up is bad. The main grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents are taking action to recover the amounts which have been paid pursuant to stepping up of pay. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no direction as such by the Supreme Court to recover the amount, but on the ground that the petitioners have lost the case before the Court the respondents are taking action to recover the arrears paid to the petitioners. On the other hand, it is contended by Smt. C. Vani Reddy, learned standing counsel for BSNL, that the action of recovery and stepping down of pay is solely based on the judgment of the Supreme Court and as the Supreme Court has held that the stepping up is not permissible, the excess amount paid to the petitioners has to be recovered from their pay and therefore the question of recovering it only from the date of passing the judgment by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8658 of 1996 and batch does not arise. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the juniors were getting more pay than the seniors the pay of the petitioners was stepped up and it is not a case where fraud or misrepresentation has been committed by the petitioners and having regard to the fact that no material is placed by the respondents to show that the petitioners have committed fraud or misrepresentation and also having regard to the fact that there is no direction in Civil Appeal No. 8658 of 1996 and batch to recover the arrears, we are of the opinion that the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioners need not be recovered from the pay of the petitioners if they are still working or from their pension if they are retired. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents not to recover the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioners prior to the date of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8658 of 1996 and batch, from their pay if they are still working, or from the pension if they are retired. No costs. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 10-10-2007. MVB.