IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11915 of 2010 1. GANESH PRASAD AMBASTHA S/O LATE RAM KRISHNA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- LOHIYA NAGAR IN THE TOWN OF BEGUSARAI, P.O.- SAHID NAGAR, P.S.- BEGUSARAI MUFASSIL, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI AND EX-SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, BEGUSARAI POSTAL DIVISION, BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL POST DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA ----------- 4 14.03.2011 The present writ application has been filed against the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.703 of 2002. The petitioner has also chosen to question the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure- 7 to the writ application, whereby the Administration realizing the mistake in fixation of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 has ordered to rectify the same and accordingly order for recovery was made. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the department itself had committed mistake in fixation of his pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for which the petitioner could not be blamed as the petitioner had neither misrepresented nor played any fraud. It is only after retirement of the petitioner the respondents’ have chosen to recover the alleged excess amount paid to him and that too without notice and/or extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which apparently is in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal however after having heard the parties has held that certain overpayments have been made to the petitioner which was 2 recoverable from the concerned person. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was mistake in calculation and fixation of pay scale of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 which was subsequently rectified by the department and accordingly order for recovery was made. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that as the department has not produced any material before us to show that the petitioner has misrepresented or played fraud in fixation of his pay with effect from 1.1.1996 as such the department is not entitled to make any recovery from the petitioner. With the above observation order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and this writ application is allowed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)