Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. Initially the petitioner prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for direction commanding the respondents to consider his case for first and second time bound promotion on completion of 10 years and 25 years of service respectively and further, not to alter or change his status, position and scale of pay in any manner. . 2. It appears that latter, by an amendment petition filed on 24-7-1995 the petitioner prayed for quashing of the order dated 19-9-1991 contained in letter No, 770 of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering department, Patna Circle (annexure-A) whereby and where under the scale of pay given to him on promotion on the post of Electricion Grade I having been found not to be according to the scale prescribed for the post as per the fourth Pay Revision Committee Report, as accepted by the Government, the same has been withdrawn, and accordingly re-fixation of his pay has been done and consequently the excess amount drawn by him has been directed to be recovered from him and to fix responsibility on the assistant found to be at fault for the same and to initiate a departmental proceeding against him. 3. It seems that by order dated 1-12-1961 the petitioner was initially appointed against the post of Electrician-cum-Fitter in the pay-scale of rs.70-125 and he joined the said post in the Public Health Engineering department (Drainage Division) Bhagalpur. Thereafter, by office order No.6 dated 8-1-1970 (Annexure-2) the petitioner was promoted in the rank of electrician grade I in the scale of Rs.160-10-220-FB-10-320 FB-10-400 (minimum Rs 200 and maximum 300) with effect from 1-1-1970 and was posted at Dumka By office order dated 26-5-1071 (annexure-3) the aforesaid promotion of the petitioner was revised and made effective from 1-4-1964, 4. According to the petitioner, he was brought in the higher post not by way of promotion, but by way of revision of pay pursuant to the report of the pay Revision Committee as accepted by the State Government. It is claimed by him that pursuant to the recommendation of the third Pay revision Committee, which was accepted by the State Government his scale of pay would be revised to Rs.340-490 with effect from 1-1-1971 when the said recommendation was implemented. Accordingly, the petitioners pay was fixed in the said scale on 1-7-73 vide order contained in annexure-3 with effect from 1-1-1971. Accordingly, the petitioners pay was fixed in the said scale on 1-7-73 vide order contained in annexure-3 with effect from 1-1-1971. It is stated that on 1-7-1983 his scale of pav was determined as Rs.850-1380 in which scale of pay he retired from service. According to him, on the basis of annual increment and annual revision of pay-scale his pay was fixed at 610-975/- with effect from 1-3-1981 which is in the scale of 1300-2040/- on account of revision of scale of pay pursuant to the fifth Pay Revision Committee recommendation and thus, it is contended that he was not granted any promotion. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintending engineer (Mechanical Circle) Patna (respondent No.4 ). The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was granted promotion with effect from 1-4-1964 and second promotion in the scale of Rs.1320-2040 with effect from 19-12-1986. It is also alleged that there was wrong fixation of pay in favour of the petitioner with the result that from 1-1-71 to 19-12-86 excessive payments have been made to the petitioner, which has to be realised from his pay. Accordingly, it is contended, that as the petitioner has already got two promotions on the post of Electrician grade I with effect from 1-4-1964 and another time bound promotion with effect from 19-12-1986, he is not entitled for any relief. The order dated 19-9-91, whereby the scale of Rs.354-490 which was given by mistake has been withdrawn, has been annexed as Annexure a to the counter affidavit whereafter, the aforementioned amendment petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the said office order (Annexure A ). 6. A reply on behalf of the petitioner has been filed to the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 in which it was reiterated that it is incorrect to say that the pay was incorrectly fixed and that he has been paid excess. According to him, the pay fixation of the petitioner was perfectly right and the petitioner was granted replacement scale of Rs.160-406. It was further stated that the suggestion that the petitioner was allowed time bound promotion vide office order dated 5-10-1994 with effect from 19-12-1986 is misleading. According to him, the pay fixation of the petitioner was perfectly right and the petitioner was granted replacement scale of Rs.160-406. It was further stated that the suggestion that the petitioner was allowed time bound promotion vide office order dated 5-10-1994 with effect from 19-12-1986 is misleading. According to him, the respondents after careful scrutiny granted the replacement scale, as provided under the recommendation of the third Pay revision Committee scale of Rs 340 490 and the corresponding scale of rs.680-965 in view of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision committee. 7. However, the various scales as claimed by the petitioner as per various revision of scale of pay accepted by the State Government has neither been brought on record nor the same has been produced so far. Thus, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. 8. From persual of annexure a which has been assailed, it is clear that the pay of the petitioner on the post of Electrician grade I was wrongly determined in the scale of Rs.340-490. and as per Fourth Pay Revision committee the replacement scale was Rs.580-860, which also was wrongly fixed as Rs.680-695 with effect from 1-4-1981. As a consequence of wrong fixation of pay, the petitioner drew excess amount and thus, by the impugned order, same has been corrected. 9. Further it appears that the petitioner was given a higher scale of rs 1320-20 40 which ought to have been Rs.1200-1800. Accordingly I find that the petitioner was given two promotion and thus, as per the Government resolution relating to grant of time bound promotion, he was not entitled for any further promotion. More over, I find that the petitioner superannuated from service long back and he having not moved earlier was otherwise also not entitled for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for grant of the aforementioned relief. 10. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for recovery of excess amount made in the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18. The facts of the said case were quite different The appellant was appointed as librarian in Government College on 29-7-1972 in the pay scale of Rs.220-550. (1) SCC 18. The facts of the said case were quite different The appellant was appointed as librarian in Government College on 29-7-1972 in the pay scale of Rs.220-550. The pay scale of librarians were upgraded to Rs 700.1600/-with effect from 1-1-1973 if they possess a minimum educational qualification of first or second class M. A. M. Sc. , M. Com. plus a first or second class B Lib. Science or Diploma in Library Science, the degree of M. Lib. Science being preferential qualification. Thereafter considering the representations made by several liberarians appointed prior to 31-12-1972 the Government of India in its proceeding dated 17-1-1987 relaxed the requirement of securing first or second class in Master degree and other prescribed educational qualification. As the principal of college allowed the appellant the said revised scale purporting to act under the above order the Haryana Government after directed the principal to withdraw the said scale allowed to the appellant which was challenged by him in the High Court, the High Court dismissed the writ. The Supreme Court also upheld the order as it was found that the relaxation given was only as regards obtaining first and second class in the prescribed educational qualification, but not relaxation in the educational qualification itself, which the appellant did not possess. Accordingly it was held that the appellant would not be entitled to relaxation and the principal erred in granting the relaxation. However, the apex Court considering the fact that the payment was mrde on account of the wrong construction made by the principal and not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant, directed that the amount paid till date cannot be recovered from the appellant. 11. In the instant case the payment to the petitioner was not made on account of wrong construction made by the authority while grantine relaxation in the required educational qualification, but it was due to fixation of his scale of pay not prescribed for the post. As per the various revisions of pay which is notified for the knowledge of all concerned. Thus, at the time of fixation of pay itself it was quite within the knowledge of the petitioner that he was given the scale of pay which was not admissible to the post. As per the various revisions of pay which is notified for the knowledge of all concerned. Thus, at the time of fixation of pay itself it was quite within the knowledge of the petitioner that he was given the scale of pay which was not admissible to the post. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not at fault in the wrong fixation of pay. He sould have brought this fact to the notice of the authority and got the proper scale fixed. In any view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner drew amount in excess of what was payable to him on account of his holding the post on promotion. Accordinaly, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed but without costs. Petition dismissed.