IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.5018 of 2009. Decided on: March 18, 2010 Kamlesh Kumari ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged Annexure P-2 order passed by the fourth respondent, whereby certain recoveries have been effected from the salary of the petitioner. It is seen that the recoveries have been made on account of the fact that there was a wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, apparently during the year 1997. Immediately on coming to know about the wrong fixation, steps have been taken to correct it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order cannot be sustained on two grounds, (1) the order has been passed without notice to the petitioner and (2) in any case the pay has been wrongly fixed without any 2 representation or misrepresentation by the petitioner and hence even if it is wrong fixation of pay, recovery cannot be effected. As far as the first ground is concerned, the petitioner may have a case, in case she has anything to submit in defence justifying the fixation. As far as the latter submission is concerned, we are afraid that the contention cannot be appreciated. In case there had been a wrong fixation of pay and in case the same has been found out within reasonable time and consequential steps are taken, it cannot be said that the action is unjust, unreasonable or arbitrary. The petitioner cannot reap the fruits of a wrong fixation. There cannot be unjust enrichment either. However, we make it clear that in case the petitioner is in a position to justify the fixation, the matter has to be looked into by the Authority. Therefore, we quash Annexure P-2 enabling the Authority to pass fresh order with notice to the petitioner. The recovery already effected will be subject to the order to be passed by the Authority. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 18, 2010 (Justice R.B. Misra), (rks) Judge.