ORDER : Dharam Veer, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated September 28, 2001 and March 11, 2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar respectively. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the workman/respondent No. 3 after his retirement filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of bonus for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 amounting to Rs. 2952/- and 1035/-respectively. The Labour Court/respondent No. 2 after affording ample opportunity to the parties for adducing the evidence and after hearing, passed an order dated September 28, 2001 thereby directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount of bonus to the respondent No. 3 within one month. The petitioner did not comply with the direction contained in the aforesaid order dated September 28, 2001, as a result of which the respondent No. 3 again moved a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar u/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for execution of the order dated September 28, 2001 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide the impugned order dated March 11, 2003 issued a recovery certificate against the petitioner to recover the balance payable amount of Rs. 5125/-. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the workman/respondent No. 3 was paid the bonus for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 at the rate of 11.67 per cent, on which he was entitled to get the bonus of Rs. 2241/- for each of the aforesaid years. But he was wrongly paid Rs. 2308/- for the year 1991-92 and Rs. 2697/- for the year 1992-93. Thus, he was paid an excess amount of Rs. 67/- for the year 1991-92 and an excess amount of Rs. 523/- for the year 1992-93. Subsequently, when the respondent No. 3 was paid the bonus for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the excess amount paid to him earlier was deducted. Hence, the workman/respondent No. 3 approached the Labour Court and his claim was allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since he was paid excess amount of bonus earlier, hence the department was fully correct in deducting the said excess amount out of the bonus of subsequent years. 5. Hence, the workman/respondent No. 3 approached the Labour Court and his claim was allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since he was paid excess amount of bonus earlier, hence the department was fully correct in deducting the said excess amount out of the bonus of subsequent years. 5. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the workman/respondent No. 3 was not at fault while receiving the excess amount of bonus, if any, nor did he receive any such payment on account of any misrepresentation made by him and the petitioner department was not correct in subsequently recovering the aforesaid excess amount of bonus from the workman. 6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1995) 1 JT 24 , wherein the appellant was appointed as a Librarian in a Government College in the pay scale of Rs. 220-550. Subsequently the pay scale was revised to Rs. 700-1600 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The appellant Librarian was granted the aforesaid revised pay scale in relaxation of the education qualification by the Principal of the College, which was de hors the rules. Therefore, the Government of Haryana directed the Principal to withdraw the revised pay scale allowed to the appellant Librarian. In these facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: Admittedly, the appellant does not possess the required educational qualification. 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. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is partly allowed without any order as to costs. 7. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is partly allowed without any order as to costs. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated September 28, 2001 and March 11, 2003 and the same do not require any interference by this Court. 8. In the result, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.