Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition was originally filed as Original Application no. 538/1999 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The tribunal has been abolished by the State Government and as such the petition has reached this court for its adjudication. ( 2. ) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 2. 2. 1999, Annexure A4, whereby the recovery of excess payment of salary from him has been directed by the Superintending Engineer (respondent no. 3 ). ( 3. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioners father and brother were serving under the respondents in the Ban Sagar Project, Rewa, and after their death the Chief Engineer (respondent no. 2) by order dated 22. 4. 1995, Annexure A2, approved the appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds in the Work Charged and Contingent Establishment on the post of conductor in the pay scale of Rs. 750-945. The Executive Engineer (respondent no. 4) thereupon issued the appointment order dated 1. 6. 1995, Annexure A3, of the petitioner in the aforesaid pay scale. On receiving the appointment order, the petitioner immediately joined the services whereupon the respondents paid him the monthly salary mentioned in the appointment order. After having worked for almost four years, the Superintending Engineer (respondent no. 3) issued the impugned order dated 2. 2. 1999, Annexure A4, stating therein that the appointment of petitioner in the Work Charged and Contingent Establishment should have been made on the fixed Collectors rate for three years and only thereafter he became entitled for the salary in the regular pay scale. On this ground the Superintending engineer (respondent no. 3) directed for the recovery of excess amount of salary from the petitioner. The submission of petitioner is that the respondents have paid him the same salary, which was mentioned in the appointment order, and therefore after more than three years the order of recovery on the pretext of excess payment of salary from him is illegal. ( 4. ) THE respondents, in their return, have stated that the appointment of petitioner in the Work Charged and Contingent Establishment as per the Government Circular dated 10. 5. 1984, Annexure 2, could have been made on the fixed Collectors rate for a period of three years and only thereafter he was entitled for the regular pay scale. ( 4. ) THE respondents, in their return, have stated that the appointment of petitioner in the Work Charged and Contingent Establishment as per the Government Circular dated 10. 5. 1984, Annexure 2, could have been made on the fixed Collectors rate for a period of three years and only thereafter he was entitled for the regular pay scale. According to the respondents, the appointment order of petitioner in the regular pay scale was, therefore, issued by mistake and as such the impugned order of recovery of excess payment from him is fully justified. ( 5. ) IT is true that Government Circular dated 10. 5. 1984 provides that the appointment in the Work Charged and Contingent Establishment should be made on the fixed Collectors rate for a period of three years and only thereafter the salary of the appointee be fixed in the regular revised pay scale but the fact remains that the salary of petitioner was fixed in the regular pay scale at the time of his appointment without any misrepresentation on his part. It appears that even the Chief Engineer, who appointed the petitioner, was not aware about the Circular dated 10. 5. 1984 of the State Government and it is only when the matter was placed for consideration before the Engineer-in-Chief the mistake was pointed out. Recently, in Col. B. J. Akkara Vs. Government of India and others (2006)11 SCC 709 the Supreme Court has held that the relief against the recovery of excess payment from a lower rank Government employee who has not misrepresented is granted by the courts on equity to relieve him from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. The Supreme Court has also observed that such an employee spends the entire amount which he receives for the upkeep of his family genuinely believing that he is entitled to it and any subsequent action to recover the excess payment would cause undue hardship to him. In the present case also, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on the regular pay scale without any misrepresentation on his part and the recovery of excess payment would cause grave hardship to him. I, therefore, direct that no steps be taken against the petitioner to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to him due to the fault of respondents. The impugned order dated 2. 2. I, therefore, direct that no steps be taken against the petitioner to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to him due to the fault of respondents. The impugned order dated 2. 2. 1999, annexure A4, is accordingly quashed as not justified on equitable grounds. ( 6. ) THE petition succeeds and is allowed but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed.