JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties in these writ petitions. The petitioners in these petitions have sought for quashing the impugned orders Annex. A/2 and A/3 dated 19.7.90 and 10.8.90 and they have also sought further direction to restrain the respondents from recovering arrears from them on the basis of said Annex. A/2 and A/3. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Peon/L.D.C., as the case may be, on daily wages. They were given regular pay-scale applicable to them from 18.9.85 by the Administrator of the Society. Their services were regularised on 31.8.92. Subsequently, the excess of salary given on the basis of regular pay-scale from 18.9.85 was sought to be recovered on the ground that the competent authority had not sanctioned or granted the payment of salary in the regular pay-scale. That made the petitioners to come to this Court challenging the said orders. This Court granted interim order on 29.8.90 staying the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of regular pay-scale and that they may be paid the regular pay-scale. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, I am informed, the recovery was not made and the petitioners were paid salary on the basis of regular pay-scale. Subsequently, their services were regularised with effect from 31.8.92. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were paid salary on the basis of regular pay-scale applicable to them from 18.9.85 by the respondents. Such payment was not made on the basis of any misrepresentation by the petitioners. It was the respondents who had paid the salary on the basis of regular pay-scale applicable to the posts for the work done by the petitioners. Further, by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, as aforementioned, they were continued to be paid salary on the basis of regular pay-scale. Their services were regularised. Under the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from 31.8.92 and, for all purpose, their services can be counted as regularised only from that date and there is no difficulty in making payment of their salary on the basis of regular pay-scale. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from 31.8.92 and, for all purpose, their services can be counted as regularised only from that date and there is no difficulty in making payment of their salary on the basis of regular pay-scale. However, with regard to the previous period between 18.9.85 and 31.8.92, he submitted that the Administrator who ordered the payment of salary on the basis of regular pay-scale was not authorised and entitled in law. Under the circumstances, he submitted that appropriate orders be passed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submission, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana & Others, 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 18 on the point that if payment is made to an employee on upgraded pay-scale due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority without any misrepresentation by the employee, recovery cannot be ordered. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The short point that needs to be resolved is whether the recovery can be made from the petitioners of the excess payment made on the basis of regular pay-scale. It is not disputed that the salary was paid to the petitioners from 18.9.85 on the basis of regular pay-scale and for the work done by the petitioners. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners securing salary on the basis of regular pay-scale. If the Administrator has paid the salary to the petitioners the petitioners cannot be penalised. Added to this, for the period between 18.9.85 to 31.8.92 the salary was paid to the petitioners on the basis of regular pay-scale and they were continued to be paid by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. Under these circumstances, and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court aforementioned, the petitions are entitled to succeed and, accordingly, I pass order in the following terms : 7. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders Annex. A/2 and N3 dated 19.7.90 and 10.8.90 are quashed. The respondents are restrained so from effecting any recovery of salary as proposed by them under Annex. A/2 and A/3. It is placed on record that the services of the petitioners are regularised with effect from 31.8.92.Appeal dismissed. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders Annex. A/2 and N3 dated 19.7.90 and 10.8.90 are quashed. The respondents are restrained so from effecting any recovery of salary as proposed by them under Annex. A/2 and A/3. It is placed on record that the services of the petitioners are regularised with effect from 31.8.92.Appeal dismissed. *******