ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 1.12.1994, as contained in Annexure-1. By the aforesaid impugned Annexure-1, the salary of the petitioner for the period from 16.7.1979 to 17.7.93 has been fixed, but at a lower scale of pay. It has been further ordered to recover the excess amount which has already been paid in favour of the petitioner during the aforesaid period, in 60 equal instalments. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Board (the Board for short) at present posted as Accounts Assistant. Admittedly, since 16.7.1979 on wards, the salary was paid to the petitioner after releasing year to year increment. On such basis, the petitioner continued to receive salary till the impugned Annexure-1 was issued. It was only in the year 1991-92, from an audit report, it came to the notice of the authorities of the Board that in terms with statutory resolution of the Board dated 16.7.1979 (Annexure-5) employee of the Board was liable to pass Hindi noting and drafting examination. Further it was laid down in the said statutory rule (Annexure-5), that till a person passes such statutory Hindi noting and drafting examination, the increment should not be released. When it came to the notice of the respondent-Board that the petitioner had not passed the requisite Hindi noting and drafting examination, but the authorities released the increments from year to year since July, 1979 and found that the petitioner had actually passed the said examination in the year 1993 the present impugned Annexure-1 has been issued. By the present impugned Annexure-1, the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed with effect from 16.7.1979 that is the date, the rule (Annexure-5) came into force, till dated 16.7.93, that is by the time the petitioner actually passed the Hindi noting and drafting examination. While making such re-fixation for the period from 16.7.79 to 17.7.93, no increment has been allowed in favour of the petitioner for each and every year and thereby the salary of the petitioner has been brought down to lower stage. It has been ordered to recover the excess amount which has already been paid in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported decision of this Court given in the case of Sanat Kumar Banerjee vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board in CWJC no 710 of 1994 disposed of on 27.1.1995. It has been ordered to recover the excess amount which has already been paid in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported decision of this Court given in the case of Sanat Kumar Banerjee vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board in CWJC no 710 of 1994 disposed of on 27.1.1995. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that this Court taking into account that increments were raleased not because of any wrong information given by the petitioner, but because of mistake on the part of the authorities, after a long delay, no order of recovery should be allowed to be made. It is submitted that in the similar case, similar order for recovery has been set aside by this Court. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in any case the petitioner having passed the examination in the year 1993, is entitled for increment for the period and whatever the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner, the same should not be recovered from the petitioner at the fag end of his service career. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Ram vrs State of Haiyana 1995 Supplementary (1) Supreme Court Cases 18 and submitted that even if more payment bas been made in favour of the petitioner on wrong construction of law, the order having been issued by the authorities of the Board, it is not open to recover the same, the Petitioner having not received such amount on any misrepresentation. The counsel for the Board submitted, while drawing my attention towards their counter-affidavit that the increments were released in favour of the petitioner since 1979 by mistake. It is contended that by impugned Annexure-1, the mistake has been rectified and proper fixation of pay has been made certain amounts having been wrongly paid in favour of the petitioner, the order for recovery has been made. He has also relied on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Sailesh Kumar Sinha vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others in C.W.J.C. no. 366 of 1994 disposed of on 24.5.1995. He has also relied on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Sailesh Kumar Sinha vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others in C.W.J.C. no. 366 of 1994 disposed of on 24.5.1995. I have gone through the aforesaid judgments including unreported decision given in the case of Sanat Kumar Banerjee and Sailesh Kumar Sinha (supra) In the case of Sailesh Kumar Sinha (supra), this Court has also taken into account the decision in the case of Sanat Kumar Banerjee in the case of Sanat Kumar Banerjee (supra) while this Court has taken a view that if any amount has been received by the employee not on misrepresentation, in that case, the recovery should not be made, even if any amount that has been paid by mistake., On the other hand, in the case of Sailesh Kumar Sinha (Supra), this Court held that if any amount has been paid and received by employee on misrepresentation, then in that case it is open to the employer to recover such amount. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner whatever the increments released in favour of the petitioner since 1979 was so released by the authorities of the Board. The petitioner never misrepresented nor the aforesaid increments were paid in favour of the petitioner on any such misrepresentation. Such being the position, according to me, the decision given by this court in the case of Sanat Kumar Banerjee (Supra), is applicable in the case of the petitioner. For the reason stated above, I set aside the impugned order dated 1.12.1994 (Annexure-1) I direct the respondents not to make any recovery from the petitioner in pursuance of such impugned Annexure-1. Any amount, if that has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner on the basis of impugned Annexure-1, the same be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforementioned observation/direction. Application allowed with observation.