Judgment : Heard both sides. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order, dated 11.3.1999 passed by the first respondent as well as the order dated 4.5.1999 issued by the third respondent and the order dated 4.11.2004 issued by the second respondent and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to respondents to continue the petitioner in the higher scale on par with the Cashier. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 2.3.2005. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay. On notice from this court, the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 15.1.2006. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 27.4.2009 together with an additional typed set. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the fourth respondent Society. Prior to the year 1984, the posts of Typist and Junior Clerk in the society carried the same scale of pay. Subsequently, the Government constituted a committee to fix the pay scale. The pay scale of typist was brought on par with the Cashier with effect from 1.10.1984. While by an order dated 19.2.1986, the typist and Cashier were brought under the scale of Rs.450-800, the Junior Clerk was brought under the scale of Rs.400-700. Subsequently, in the year 1988, the same difference continued. Even during 1989 when the factory workers entered into a settlement under Section 12(3), the post of typists and cashiers carried the same scale of pay but the junior clerk was on a lower scale. The settlement was approved by the first respondent on 18.2.1992. The revision of pay took place with effect from 1.10.1991. Once again, the same difference continued. Similar was the situation when the scale of pay was revised on 20.10.1996. By an order, dated 11.3.1999, a disparity was created between the post of Cashier and typist. The typist was brought on par with the junior assistant which was earlier called as junior clerk. 5. The petitioner gave a representation on 14.6.1999 stating that his scale of pay should be on par with the Cashier and not that of a junior assistant. The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, by an order, dated 2.2.2000 revised the scale with effect from 1.4.1999 and brought it on par with the scale of pay of Cashier. 5. The petitioner gave a representation on 14.6.1999 stating that his scale of pay should be on par with the Cashier and not that of a junior assistant. The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, by an order, dated 2.2.2000 revised the scale with effect from 1.4.1999 and brought it on par with the scale of pay of Cashier. Subsequently, periodical increments were given to the petitioner for the years 2000 to 2003 on the revised scale. But, however without any rhyme or reason on 4.11.2004, the second respondent passed an order directing the fourth respondent to revise the scale to that of a junior assistant in the scale of Rs.3200-4900. Consequently, an order came to be issued on 28.12.2004 and that too based upon a representation made by one Seetha, who was an Office Assistant on a Special Grade. Therefore, the petitioner came forward to challenge this order as noted already. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, these facts were not controverted. On the contrary, their only contention was that they were made to obey the order of the higher authorities and that the petitioners scale was wrongly fixed. However, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows: "6....As per the recommendations of the official committee constituted as per the orders issued by the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commercie vide ref.no.764/ICM2/95 dated 11.03.99 and 764/ICM2/95 dated 25.08.2000, the posts of Junior Clerk, Ordinary Typist and Steno Typist have been categorized under one and the same group and their scale of pay in the ordinary grade has been elevated and revised to the scale of pay of Rs.3200-85-4900 with effect from 1.4.99. Instead of refixing the pay of Thiru H.Gopalakrishnan, Typist at Rs.4,050/-in the ordinary grade Typist in the scale of pay of Rs.3200-85-4900 with effect from 1.4.99 his pay was inadvertently fixed by the Management of the factory at the minimum pay of Rs.4,000/-in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 applicable to the Selection Grade post of Typist. AS he had joined duty on 12.4.90 and completed his 10 years services only on 11.4.2000, he is eligible for his fixation of pay in the Selection Grade post of Typist only with effect from 12.4.2000." 7. AS he had joined duty on 12.4.90 and completed his 10 years services only on 11.4.2000, he is eligible for his fixation of pay in the Selection Grade post of Typist only with effect from 12.4.2000." 7. Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that having treated the posts of Cashier and typist on par and several revision of pay have taken place over the years, it is too late for the respondents to reduce the scale of a typist and bring it on par with the junior assistant, thereby reducing the scale. Therefore, inasmuch as no proper notice was given, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also stated that for the recovery of alleged excess payment, no notice was given. Subsequently, after getting instructions from her client, she also filed a memo, dated 18.6.2010, stating that while she must be given liberty to represent for an higher scale with the Management and that her client was particular about the order of recovery of alleged excess payment to be set aside which was done without notice. 8. However, the learned counsel for fourth respondent, Mr.R.Parthiban, contended that it is not in the case of the petitioner alone such pay fixation had taken place, but due to general re-organisation, posts of typists and junior assistants were brought on par. Therefore, the petitioner cannot complain of any discrimination. In the case of petitioner alone, no higher scale of pay can be granted. With reference to the recovery of alleged excess payment, though he admitted that no notice was given, but he claimed that they are legally entitled to do so. 9. However, this court is not inclined to go into the cause behind the reduction of scale of pay. It is suffice to state that it is for the petitioner to make a representation and convince the authorities that he should be fixed on par with the post of Cashier at all times. But, with reference to the recovery of alleged excess payment, it can be stated that the petitioner was not responsible for the higher pay scale fixation and that all these years, typists and cashiers were treated on par and given successive pay revisions. Further, no notice was given for the alleged recovery of excess amount ordered by the respondents. 10. But, with reference to the recovery of alleged excess payment, it can be stated that the petitioner was not responsible for the higher pay scale fixation and that all these years, typists and cashiers were treated on par and given successive pay revisions. Further, no notice was given for the alleged recovery of excess amount ordered by the respondents. 10. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475 . The following passages found in paragraph 57 and 58 from the said judgment may be usefully extracted herebelow: 57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur. (Emphasis added) 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand partly allowed. The impugned order insofar as attempts to recover alleged excess payment made to the petitioner is set aside. With reference to revision of scale, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy with the respondents. (Emphasis added) 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand partly allowed. The impugned order insofar as attempts to recover alleged excess payment made to the petitioner is set aside. With reference to revision of scale, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy with the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.