Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that he was working as a P.G. Assistant in the fourth respondent school. The petitioners scale of pay had been fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 290. The petitioner was promoted from the stage of B.T.Special Grade, which carries the scale of pay of Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200, to P.G. ordinary grade, which carries the scale of pay of Rs.1820-60-2300-75-3200. 3. The petitioner has further stated that G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 23. 90, had been fully implemented, with effect from 6. 88, and the petitioner was granted the scale of pay as per the details contained therein. It has been further stated that some other persons whose scale of pay had been fixed, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 23. 90, are continuing to enjoy the benefits granted to them. However, the fourth respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 8. 96, to recover the excess amount alleged to have been paid to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.5321 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.21924 of 2006. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as a Special Grade Inducted B.T. Assistant in the Government High School, Valliyoor. He had passed the Post Graduate Teacher Certificate Course in Physics in the month of October, 1985, conducted by the State Council of Educational Research Training, Madras. Thereafter, he became a post graduate teacher, with effect from 210. 1985 and his pay was fixed in the post of P.G. Assistant, on 210. 1985, in the scale of pay of Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950. The petitioner had continued to serve only as a Post Graduate Assistant, from 210. 1985 onwards. Consequent to the introduction of the revised scale of Rule, 1989, he had opted to come over to the revised scale of pay from 6. 88 and accordingly, his pay was fixed at Rs.2525/-in the revised scale of pay. The scale of pay of the petitioner was again refixed, on 6. 1985 onwards. Consequent to the introduction of the revised scale of Rule, 1989, he had opted to come over to the revised scale of pay from 6. 88 and accordingly, his pay was fixed at Rs.2525/-in the revised scale of pay. The scale of pay of the petitioner was again refixed, on 6. 88, at Rs.2575, in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000, applicable to the post of Selection Grade Post Graduate Assistant. The said scale of pay was wrongly fixed by the Headmaster Government Higher Secondary school, Valliyoor, quoting G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 23. 90, and on the wrong basis that he had been promoted from the post of Special Grade B.T. Assistant to the post of Post Graduate Assistant. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 23. 90, does not provide for any such fixation of pay as was done in the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the fourth respondent had passed the order, dated 8. 96, in Na.Ka.No.487/A/96, to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the claims made by the petitioner. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of recovery, dated 8. 96, had been passed by the fourth respondent. Further, there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner, based on which the refixation of the petitioners scale of pay was made. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had set aside the orders issued by the concerned authorities attempting to recover the amounts paid as salary, increments and other allowances. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, dated 23. 2008, made in W.P.No.36514 of 2007. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had not refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The following decisions, relating to the recovery of excess amounts paid to the employees, are in favour of the petitioner in the present writ petition. 8.1) In PURSHOTTAM LAL DAS Vs. 2008, made in W.P.No.36514 of 2007. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had not refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The following decisions, relating to the recovery of excess amounts paid to the employees, are in favour of the petitioner in the present writ petition. 8.1) In PURSHOTTAM LAL DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR ( (2006) 11 SCC 492 ), the Supreme Court had held that the recovery of the excess amounts paid to the employees could be recovered only in such cases where they have been found guilty of producing forged certificates or their appointments had been secured on non-permissible grounds. 8.2) The Supreme Court, in BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BIJAY BHADUR ( (2000) 10 SCC 99 ), had held that the recovery of the increments given, not on account of any representation or misrepresentation, cannot be sustained, as it would not be in consonance with equity, good conscience, justice and fairness. 8.3) In UNION OF INDIA Vs. REKHA MAJHI ( (2000) 10 SCC 659 ), the Supreme Court had refused to permit the recovery of excess payment made, since the person against whom the recovery was to be made was the only breadwinner of the family and as she was, financially, not in a position to pay back the excess dearness relief drawn. 8.4) The Supreme Court, in SAHIB RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ((1995) Supp (1) SCC 18), had held that the recovery of excess payment given by the authorities concerned, by wrong construction of the relevant orders, without any misrepresentation by the employee, cannot be made. 8.5) In the decision of the Supreme Court, in BABULAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P. ( (2007) 6 SCC 180 ), it was held that since the excess payment had been made on misconception of law and not due to any mistake or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant, the recovery of the excess amount, without issuing any show cause notice, is not justified. 8.6) In the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P. ARUMUGAM Vs. REGISTRAR, TAMIL UNIVERSITY ((2006) 3 M.L.J.1025), it was held that when the employee was not responsible for the wrong fixation, the excess payment made cannot be recovered, especially, after the retirement of the employee and when the recovery was sought for after 17 years of service. 8.7) In D. PALAVESAMUTHU Vs. REGISTRAR, TAMIL UNIVERSITY ((2006) 3 M.L.J.1025), it was held that when the employee was not responsible for the wrong fixation, the excess payment made cannot be recovered, especially, after the retirement of the employee and when the recovery was sought for after 17 years of service. 8.7) In D. PALAVESAMUTHU Vs. T.N. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ((2006) (3) L.L.N.461), a Division Bench of this Court had held that when the fault of excess payment was committed by the Department and their officers and it was not due to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be penalized after the lapse of number of years, that too after his retirement. 8.8) In KANTHIMATHI, S.A. Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MADRAS ( (2006) 1 M.L.J. 695 ), this Court had held that the recovery of excess amount paid cannot be recovered when it was not due to the fault of the petitioner and when no opportunity had been given to her before the order of recovery was passed. Since the salary paid to the petitioner was not on account of any misrepresentation and when the order had been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case, the impugned order of recovery was quashed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions rendered by the Courts of law and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the excess amount said to have been paid to the petitioner is not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Further, no notice had been issued to the petitioner to put forth his case before the impugned order of recovery has been passed by the fourth respondent, on 8. 96. The petitioner cannot be held liable for the fault committed by the concerned authorities who were responsible for refixing the scale of pay of the petitioner. 10. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 8. 96, made in Na.Ka.No.487/A/96, seeking to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner is liable to be set aside, as it has been passed without issuing the necessary notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. 10. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 8. 96, made in Na.Ka.No.487/A/96, seeking to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner is liable to be set aside, as it has been passed without issuing the necessary notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the excess amount had been granted to the petitioner based on his misrepresentation or fraud. Therefore, the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 8. 96, is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.