IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :02.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.8404 of 2007 (O.A.No.5116 of 2002) K.Masi Retired Assistant Project Officer (DWCRA) No.3/220 Mela Street(Near Water Tank) Thuvakudi, Trichy-15 .. Petitioner /vs/ 1.The District Collector Collectorate Trichirapalli 2.The Director of Rural Development Chennai 3.The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18 4.The Accountant General(Audit) Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry Chennai-35 .. Respondents PRAYER: This Writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.5116 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai with the prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent herein passed in his Na.Ka.Tha.7/5863/2001 dated 10.06.2002 and 29.08.2002 and the consequential order of the second respondent herein passed in his Na.Ka.No.44725/ 2001/Pen.3/dated 21.8.2002 directing the petitioner to repay Rs.63,946/- considered as excess pay paid to the petitioner and quash the same with all benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Ravishanmugam For Respondents: Mr.V.Subbiah Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner was appointed as Typist in the year 1964. He was posted as Junior Assistant on 01.09.1972 on transfer of service. He was promoted as Assistant on 12.05.1977 and on 18.01.1988 he was further promoted as Extension Officer. On 22.11.1995, he was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer. Ultimately, on 11.06.1997, he was promoted as Block Development Officer. He also got further promotion as Assistant Project Officer. He retired from service on 31.05.2001 as Assistant project Officer on reaching the age of superannuation. 2. While so, the impugned order dated 10.06.2002 was passed by the first respondent stating that there was wrong fixation of pay, while he was worked as Extension Officer in the year 1988. The impugned order was passed after 14 years of the alleged wrong fixation. It has been well settled by various decisions that if the wrong fixation was not made due to any misrepresentation by the petitioner, the respondent could not recover the alleged excess payment. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others (1955 Supp (1) Supreme Court cases 18) squarely applies to the facts of this case. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ari To 1.The District Collector Collectorate Trichirapalli 2.The Director of Rural Development Chennai 3.The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Accountant General(Audit) Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry Chennai-35 1 cc To M/s.Sudha Ravi, Advocate Sr 66716 1 cc to The Govt. Pleader, SR 66820 W.P.No.8404 of 2007 sai[co] gp/18.11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/