ORDER The petitioner was appointed as a miscellaneous coolie from 26-3-1969 in the pay scale of Rs. 65-95/- at Temporary Work Charge establishment. While working as such, the pay scale of eleven cadres of work charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 65-95/- including literate coolies, head coolies and mukdams were reclassified as Junior Work Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs. 90-200/- as per order dated 20-91971. The order however did not include miscellaneous coolies, whose duties and responsibilities are similar to mukdams. Notwithstanding the same, as per the order dated 30-4-1986, the Government absorbed miscellaneous coolies as Junior Work Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.90-200/-. This was granted to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Work Inspector by an order dated 14-8-1986 and he was so absorbed with effect from 1-9-1971. Further, the respondent, by an order dated 27-121988, ordered for recovery from the petitioner on the footing that the pay scales had been mistakenly granted to the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the same by way of writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 7205 of 1989 and this Court, by an order dated 29-10-1997, had allowed the petition and quashed the order of recovery, and held that the respondent was at liberty to recover the said amount if it was made wrongly, only after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of hearing. The respondent, however, did not choose to recover the said amount. On the other hand, by an order dated 22-92002, the respondent granted" revised pay scales of Rs. 960-1760 to the petitioner and further revised pay scales were granted from time to time, till the date of the petition in the cadre of Junior Work Inspector. It is only by an order dated 20-3-2002, the respondent has proceeded to order for recovery, without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The Counsel for the petitioner would contend, that the respondent had granted the pay scales of Rs. 90-200/- with effect from 1-9-1971 as per order dated 14-8-1996. And, this was not on the basis of any misrepresentation by the petitioner. The respondent, of its own volition having so granted the benefit, is now seeking to recover the same without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. 90-200/- with effect from 1-9-1971 as per order dated 14-8-1996. And, this was not on the basis of any misrepresentation by the petitioner. The respondent, of its own volition having so granted the benefit, is now seeking to recover the same without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. And, he would contend, that the order is not only in violation of principles of natural justice, but runs counter to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. He would further submit that the re-fixation of pay amounts to revocation in the pay scales and rank, which ought to be preceded by an enquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the action of the respondent is illegal and unjust. In this regard, he would place reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v G. Sreenivasa Rao and Others1 wherein a higher pay had been granted to the State Government employees by virtue of an order passed by the Tribunal. In an appeal before the Supreme Court, however, the Supreme Court held' that the respondents are white-collared salaried persons and it would be too harsh for them to refund the salary if the salaries are already paid to them. And, therefore, directed that the additional salary paid to the employees as a result of the orders of the High Court/Tribunal shall not be recovered from them. In the case of Bhagwan Shukla v Union of India and Others2, the appellant had questioned the re-fixation of his basic pay, whereby it was reduced with retrospective effect. The justification furnished by the respondents for reducing the pay was that the same was 'wrongly fixed' initially and that the position had continued due to "administrative lapses" for about twenty years, when it was decided to rectify the mistake. The Supreme Court held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer a huge financial loss without being heard and the order reducing the basic pay of the appellant was set aside. The Supreme Court held that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer a huge financial loss without being heard and the order reducing the basic pay of the appellant was set aside. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others v Union of India and Others3, wherein the Supreme Court held that any excess amounts paid to the petitioners which was not due to their fault, but on account of the fault of the respondents and the petitioners, not being responsible for the same in any way, the respondents could not recover the excess amounts which had already been paid to them and accordingly directed the respondents not to take any steps to recover or adjust any amounts paid to the petitioners in excess. In P.H. Reddy and Others v National Institute of Rural Development and Others1, this was a matter referred to a three-Judges Bench on account of an inconsistency having been noticed between two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in Director General of Posts and Others v B. Ravindran and Another2 and Director General, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v M.P. John and Others3. The dispute centered round the question as to the fixation of pay of an employee on retirement from defence services and on being re-employed in a civil post. On such re-employment the pay had been fixed at a particular sum. But, by a later order, on the basis of relevant Government circulars, the pay was refixed by the appropriate authority and direction was issued for recovering the excess amount paid. Assailing the same, the appellants had approached the High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, quashing the order of fixation of salary. On appeal, the Division Bench, however set aside the same and the matter was before the Supreme Court. While affirming the view taken in M.P. John's case, as representing the correct view and consequently holding that the order of re-fixation done by the appropriate authority does not require interference, the Supreme Court held that the employees who had been in receipt of a higher amount on account of erroneous fixation by the authority ought not to be asked to repay the excess pay drawn, and therefore, that part of the direction of the appropriate authority requiring reimbursement of the excess amount drawn was annulled. And, on the basis of these authorities, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed. 3. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent, would seek to place reliance on the judgment in the case of Karnataka Lokopayogi Ilaha Tantrika Sahayak Noukarara Sangha v State of Karnataka and Another4 where, by virtue of a misconstruction of an order dated 23-1-1980, Junior Work Inspectors, who were not entitled to extension of pay scales were granted and this was sought to be recovered at a later point of time. The Supreme Court held that this action on the part of the respondents could not be held to be illegal. It further held that the State Government may consider the question of recovery of arrears in the light of the directions issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. And, on the case of V. Gangaram v Regional Joint Director and Others5, where, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court found that the appellant was entitled to computation of pay scales for having acquired the additional qualifications and that he was entitled to two additional increments and not four increments as successively claimed. And further, that the respondents could recover the excess amounts paid only partially and that instalments should be proportionally distributed so as not to cause any undue hardship to the appellant. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply would further place reliance on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.B. Sohar and Others v State of Karnataka and Others1 where the Division Bench has taken note of the several judgments of the Supreme Court stated hereinabove including the judgment in the Karnataka lokopayogi case and has held that the test in such cases would be whether the excess payment has been made on account of a mistake on the part of the authorities concerned or on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees concerned. If the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees, the excess amount should be recovered from the employees concerned. If the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees, the excess amount should be recovered from the employees concerned. But if the employees are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud and the amount has been paid due to a mistake on the part of the authority concerned in fixing or deciding the pay scale applicable, the excess payment already made should not be recovered. And, insofar as the judgment in Karnataka Lokopayogi case is concerned, the Bench of this Court has noticed that pursuant to the disposal of the said appeal by the Supreme Court, the employees had approached the Government seeking waiver, but the Government passed an order directing recovery of the amount in 36 instalments. This was challenged before the Tribunal and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dismissed the applications holding that since the Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal, the applicants-employees were not entitled to higher pay scales and since the Government considered and decided not to grant any such waiver but only to grant instalments, the same does not suffer from any infirmity. The matter having been carried by way of writ petition before the Division Bench as aforesaid, the Division Bench held that the State Government was required to consider whether the excess amount paid to the petitioner should be recovered at al1 or it should be waived and not whether to limit it to grant of instalments. This was contrary to the directions issued by the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held that the impugned order ought to be set aside, but however, since there was already a direction of the Supreme Court, the authority ought to abide by the same. 5. Having regard to this legal position as is settled by the several judgments of the Supreme Court and the fact that the judgment rendered in V. Gangaram's case, which is sought to be relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent, which does not refer to the several judgments of the Supreme Court and having regard to the later judgments which have been cited above, in my opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for interference and accordingly, since the amounts paid to the petitioner were not on account or any fault of his, the petition is allowed. The impugned Annexure-E is quashed.