JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Service of Rule waived by the parties. With their consent heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners are working as Peons in the Directorate of Agriculture and on 20th January, 1990 they were granted time bound pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1-6-89. Subsequently, the Government realising its mistake in fixation of time bound pay scale, by Order dated 15-1-91 granted time bound scale of Rs. 775-1025 instead of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1-6-89. By the same order, recovery of excess payment was ordered to be made from the petitioners in six equal instalments. The directions therein were to Zonal Officers of Valpoi, Bicholim and Mapusa. The petitioners made representations to the authorities and, in the meantime, continued to be paid the time bound scale of Rs. 950-1400. By Order dated 12-1-98, once again it was reiterated that the time bound scale to be given to the petitioners is Rs. 775-1025 instead of Rs. 950-1400 and the Zonal Agricultural Officers of Bicholim, Valpoi and Mapusa were again asked to recover the excess payment made to the petitioners. 3. When the matter came up before this Court on 9th February, 1998, the petitioners were permitted to make representations to the authorities in the matter and we are informed that representations were in fact made by the petitioners and the same have been rejected by the Government. Interim directions for recovery were made on 26th March, 1996 and those interim directions for the present were restricted to 50% of recovery as set out in column No. 9 of Exh. R and the recovery of the said 50% amount was ordered to be effected with effect from 1st April, 1998. 4. In the meantime, the Zonal Agricultural Officers to whom directions were given for recovery under order dated 15-1-91 were served with notice and they were called upon to show cause as to why inspite of the said Order dated 15-1-91 the recoveries were not made and why the Peons were continued to be paid in the time bound scale of Rs 950-1400. They filed their reply to the show cause and the explanation given by them is that it happened due to oversight and on account of the fact that the representations had been made by the petitioners, no steps were taken for recovery. They filed their reply to the show cause and the explanation given by them is that it happened due to oversight and on account of the fact that the representations had been made by the petitioners, no steps were taken for recovery. Admittedly, there were no instructions to the contrary from the authorities on the representations made by the petitioners and the said Zonal Agricultural Officers, who have been added as respondents No. 3 to 5, were bound in law to make the recoveries. 5. We have heard two of them namely respondents No. 3 and 5 who were present in the Court and they were not able to justify as to why they did not take steps to effect recovery of excess payment as per Order dated 15-1-91 and, on the contrary, the petitioners were allowed to continue to draw their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400. 6. Admittedly, the time bound scale which was given to the petitioner, as per Rules, should have been Rs. 775-1025, but instead the time bound scale given to them was Rs. 950-1400 vide Order dated 21-1-90. The Government soon realised the error and by Order dated 15-1-91 the time bound scale of Rs. 950-1400 was withdrawn and instead the time bound scale given to them was Rs. 775-1025 and directions were given to the Zonal Agricultural Officers of Valpoi, Bicholim and Mapusa to make excess recoveries. As we have already pointed out, the said Zonal Agricultural Officers are respondents No. 3 to 5. 7. In view of the above position, we do not find any merit in this petition wherein directions have been sought for withdrawal of Orders dated 15-1-91 and 12-1-98. Learned advocate Shri Sonak urged before us that it would be inequitable at this stage to make recoveries from the petitioners. We do not find any merit in this submission of learned Advocate Shri Sonak. Of course, the petitioners can be granted suitable instalments for paying the excess amount due from them as worked out in Exh R. 3 by the Government. We do not find any merit in this submission of learned Advocate Shri Sonak. Of course, the petitioners can be granted suitable instalments for paying the excess amount due from them as worked out in Exh R. 3 by the Government. However, at this stage, we would like to state that in the facts and circumstances recovery to the extent of 90% of excess payment should be made from the petitioners and the interim order passed on 25th March, 1996 stands modified to this extent and 10% of the recovery of excess payment should be made from the respondents No. 3 to 5. To be more specific in case of petitioner Babal Ghadi 10% of the amount is to be recovered which is shown in Column No. 6 from respondent No. 3 Shri S.N. Lad; from petitioner Digambar Joshi 10% of the amount shown in Column No. 6 shall be recovered from respondent No. 5 R.A. Chowgule and in case of petitioner R.K. Porob 10% shown in Column No. 6 shall be recovered from respondent No. 4 A.H. Kale. In addition to the 10% liability which is fixed on the respondents No. 3 to 5, they shall also pay the amount of interest at 10% p.a. on the excess payments which was made to the petitioners from time to time and the figure relating payment of 10% p.a. interest from 15-2-91 i.e. one month after issuance of Notice dated 15-1-91 (Exh. C. at page 41) shall be worked out by the Government and recovered from respondents No. 3 to 5 till 12-1-98. A Corrigendum (Exh. E at page 59) was issued. The Government may in case it deems fit, grant six monthly instalments to respondents No. 3 to 5 to effect the payment. The working of 90% to be recovered from the petitioners shall also be worked out and corresponding instalments as already proposed in Exh. R. 3 shall be made afresh. It is rather surprising that the Government has till to date not instituted any disciplinary action against respondents No. 3 to 5 and, as such, it is considered necessary that directions be given to the Government to initiate disciplinary action against respondents No. 3 to 5 in addition to the payments which have been ordered to be recovered from them. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute accordingly in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.