SBCWP No.3980/2006. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3980/2006. Ram Nath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Date of Judgment : September 24, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manoj Awasthi for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Sharma for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2/1/2006 (Ann.4) by which respondent-Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation are seeking to recover from him a sum of Rs.10,229/-. The petitioner was working with the respondents on the post of Peon. He was retrenched and a reference of this dispute was made to the labour court which by its award dated 2/2/1994 declared retrenchment to be illegal. 3) Respondents filed writ petition before this court challenging the said award in which order under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was SBCWP No.3980/2006. 2 passed on 3/12/1999 requiring them to pay to the petitioner last wages drawn with direction to pay the arrears thereof within two months. 4) Shri K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that amount of Rs.10,229/- was paid in excess to the petitioner owing to some mistake in calculation therefore respondents were lawfully entitled to recover such amount from the petitioner. 5) Petitioner has raised grievance that this issue was racked up by the respondents when he stood retired and demanded pensionary benefits and gratuity from the respondents. Respondents have not shown whether aforesaid excess amount was paid to the petitioner owing to any fraud or misrepresentation on his part. The law is well setteld that if any excess amount in such manner is paid but not because of any fraud and misrepresentation of the employee, recovery cannot be made, although, mistake can be rectified prospectively. More particularly, this principle has to be applied in the present case with rather more vigour because petitioner was low paid employee working as Peon with the respondents and he stood retired. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 2/1/2006 (Annexure-4) is set-aside. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil