1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2515 OF 1994. B.D.Jojare, Age major, Occ.Service, R/o Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3. The Executive Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.H.K.Munde, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 23.06.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the pay fixation in higher pay-scale of graduate trained teachers with effect from 3.7.1980. According to the petitioner in view of the Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979, the petitioner was entitled to the said pay-scale from 1976 and it was rightly granted. However, it is submitted that Zilla Parishad has illegally changed the rate to 3.7.1980. He further submits that higher salary paid to the petitioner between the period 1976 has also been illegally recovered from the petitioner. 2. The Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979 has been introduced so as to provide higher pay-scale to 25% of the teachers working in Primary Schools to which 5th to 7th standard are attached who are possessing qualification with B.Ed. qualification. However, it has also been held that for the said purpose a seniority list of persons possessing graduation and B.Ed. degree has to be prepared and only on the date on 3 which such a teacher acquires B.Ed. degree, he is entitled to be included in the seniority list of graduate trained teachers. It is not case of the petitioner that a person who has acquired B.Ed. qualification later then the petitioner has been given a trained graduate teacher's scale prior to the petitioner. 3. As a matter of fact, Zilla Parishad has filed affidavit stating that the post for accommodating the petitioner in trained graduate scales was available on 3.7.1980 and accordingly, the petitioner has been given placement in that scale from that date. We do not find any error in that respect. 4. However, it is now settled law that if a higher pay-scale is erroneously given to the employee and no fault is attributed to him then it is not permissible for the employer to recover the same from the employee. In that view of the matter, we hold that no recovery could have been made of the excess amount paid to the petitioner between the year 1976-80. The same shall be 4 refunded to him within a period of six (6) months from today alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Rule partly made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp251594