IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18544 of 2008 Between: 1 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Sanchalan Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The South Central Railway, Rep by the General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3 The Chief Personnel Officer, 4th floor, Personnel Branch, Rail Nilayam South Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Secunderabad-500 071. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Smt. J. Revathy, Sr. Clerk, Chief Commercial Manager's Office Rates 1st Floor, Raily Nilayam, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to OA No. 104/2006 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same, in part, to the extent of the direction given to the petitioners herein not to make any recovery of the excess amount already paid to the respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and further declare that these orders have been passed without any jurisdiction vested in the Honourable CAT Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.PUSHPINDER KAUR Counsel for the Respondents:. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.NO. 18544 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is ﬁled by the Railways challenging the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 104 of 2006 to the extent it quashed the order of recovery. The order of the Tribunal conﬁrming the revision of ﬁxation of pay of the respondent is not under challenge. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2005 re- ﬁxing his pay, the respondent ﬁled an OA before the Tribunal. The respondent was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the writ petitioners’ organization and later he was promoted as Senior Clerk with eﬀect from 15.7.1998. The writ petitioners, on their own volition, revised his pay on 6.2.2004 enhancing his pay. His promotion was given eﬀective from 6.5.1996 on proforma ﬁxation and ﬁnancial beneﬁt was given with eﬀect from 15.7.1998. Diﬀerence amount of pay as a result of re-ﬁxation was paid on 6.2.2004. Thereafter on 11.5.2005 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent stating that his pay was wrongly re-ﬁxed on 6.2.2004 and he was asked to explain as to why his pay should not be revised again restoring his pay ﬁxation made at the time of his promotion as Senior Clerk. The respondent submitted his reply on 2.9.2005. The Tribunal considered the case and held that the respondent had not made any misrepresentation for getting the undue beneﬁts. The writ petitioners themselves paid the amount to the respondent by ﬁxing his pay. For the fault of the oﬃcials of the writ petitioners, the respondent could not be made to suﬀer by way of recovery of the amounts paid to her. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others [1] wherein the Apex Court held that the upgraded pay scale given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority without any misrepresentation by the employee, the recovery of payment already made is not sustainable and it is to be restrained. The respondent, in this case, was also similarly placed as that of the case before the Apex Court. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the respondent for getting the beneﬁt. The learned counsel standing counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that even though the department has paid the amount mistakenly, that itself does not confer any right on the respondent to retain the amount as the respondent was not entitled for that amount and the Tribunal ought not have set aside the order of recovery. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and quashed the order of recovery holding that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the respondent and the recovery of the arrears paid to the respondent on 6.2.2004 was not justiﬁable and it need not be recovered. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as it does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _____________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Dt.26.8.2008 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18