B. Lamare, J. Heard Mr. N. Jotendro Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Md. Jalal Uddin, learned GA for the respondents. 2. In this appeal the order dated 13.7.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.225 of 2000 has been assailed. The brief facts of the case is that the appellants five in numbers were serving as unapproved teachers in various Schools. By the order dated 25.10.99 their services were regularized. By this order dated 25.10.99, they were notionally regularized w.e.f. 1.1.80 for the purpose of calculating their services towards pension and other retirement benefits. However, for the actual payment of their salary to them it shall be calculated from 25.10.90. The said order reads as follows :- “ O R D E R S Imphal, the 25th Oct., 1999 No.2/345/94-ED(S) : In pursuance of the approval of the Govt. conveyed under their letter No.12/146/94-SE(S) Pt dated the 1st October, 1999, and in compliance with the Order dated 31.7.95 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in C.R.No.913/94, the 10(ten) persons/teachers shown in the 'ANNEXURE' are appointed temporarily as Asst. Teacher on absorbtion basis in the Scale of pay of Rs. 1200-30-1400-EB-30-1800/- p.m. (pre-revised) with D.A. and other allowances as admissible under rules. 2. This order shall have effect notionally from 1.1.80 and actual payment shall be made from 25.10.1990. However, the period of their national appointment shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary and retirement benefits. 3. The under matric/matric/HSLC teachers appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1400-EB-30-1800/- p.m. shall passed P.U.C. Higher Secondary Examination within the period of 5(five) years, failing which their appointment shall stand cancelled. 4. The appointment is subject to the verification of his/her character, antecedents and production of Medical Certificate from the authority concerned. 5. The expenditure is debitable to Major Head-2202-Gen. Education (Non-Plan) 01-Elementary Education, 101-Government Primary Schools, 204-Primary Schools and 001-Salaries.” 3. After the above order was passed the Cirrigendum dated 16.2.2000, was issued correcting the date of the actual payment to be made to them from 25.10.90 to 25.20.99, the Corrigendum reads as follows :- “ CORRIGENDUM IMPHAL, THE 16TH FEBRUARY, 2000. No.2/345/94-ED(S) : Read as “25.10.1999” in place of 25.10.90 occurring in the 2nd line of para 2(two) of this Office Orders of even number dated 25.10.99 issued in connection with appointment of 10(ten) Assistant Teachers on absorption. No.2/345/94-ED(S) : Read as “25.10.1999” in place of 25.10.90 occurring in the 2nd line of para 2(two) of this Office Orders of even number dated 25.10.99 issued in connection with appointment of 10(ten) Assistant Teachers on absorption. It is, further, ordered that if any excess drawl of pay and allowances as already been made by virtue of this Office Orders of even number dated 25.10.99, the excess amount should be refunded and deposited by Challan under the Salary Heads of Accounts.” 4. Mr. Jotendro, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the only grievance of the appellants in this appeal is with regard to the recovery of the excess payment made to them. 5. Records shows that after the order dated 25.10.90 was issued, the payment was made to the appellants and that only on 16.2.2000 the Corrigendum was issued. The payment was made to the appellants not on their mis-representation, but on the action of the State respondents by changing the effective date of payment of the salary of the appellants. In order to appreciate this point we may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram, Appellant v. State of Haryana and Others, respondents, reported in 1995 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 18, wherein, in paragraph 5 of the judgment it was held as follows :- “5. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” 6. In the instant case also the amount was paid to the appellants not on misrepresentation but because of the issuing of the Corrigendum dated 6.2.2000. It would not be fair or proper to recover the said amount from the present appellants. In the result, we set aside the second paragraph of the impugned Corrigendum dated 16.2.2000 whereby the recovery if required to be made from the appellants. It would not be fair or proper to recover the said amount from the present appellants. In the result, we set aside the second paragraph of the impugned Corrigendum dated 16.2.2000 whereby the recovery if required to be made from the appellants. In other words, no excess amount paid to the appellants shall be recovered. 7. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.