THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition No.13139 of 2009 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The first respondent, while working as Head Constable, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2003. After his retirement, the first petitioner issued proceedings dated 14.2.2003, directing the concerned to effect recovery of Rs.24,630/-from his pensionary benefits on account of erroneous fixation of pay and allowances. After deducting the said amount, the second respondent released his pensionary benefits. Challenging the said proceedings, the first respondent filed O.A.No.1596 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Through order, dated 28.08.2008, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. setting aside the proceedings dated 14.02.2003, and directed the petitioners to return the excess amount already recovered from the pension of the first respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. The first respondent filed counter stating that he was originally appointed as Police Constable under the control of the first petitioner with effect from 20.06.1971 and later, he was promoted as Head Constable from 07.04.1994 and continued in the same post till his retirement on 31.01.2003. He stated that during his entire service, no notice regarding the erroneous pay fixation was issued to him. He further stated that though the Tribunal directed the petitioners to refund the amount of Rs.24,630/.-, they have not paid the same. 3. The Tribunal has considered the contentions of the first respondent in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners and found that for the erroneous pay fixation of the petitioners, the first respondent is not responsible. The petitioners herein contended that the pay of the first respondent was fixed in Revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 1978 by giving three weightages counting the service from the date of his appointment i.e., 20.06.1971, which is erroneous as the service has to be counted from the date of time scale of pay i.e., 11.07.1973 and consequential recovery of excess amount was sought to be made. The Tribunal considered the decision of the Supreme Court i n SAHIBRAM v. HARYANA[1] and directed the petitioners to return the excess amount already recovered from the pension of the first respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in issuing the directions to refund the said excess amount already recovered from the pension of the first respondent and we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned in this writ petition. The Writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:14.07.2011 sj [1] 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18