Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in re.Ni.Mu.No.MPV3/ 16465/2006 dated 4.5.2006 and to quash the same. Further, the respondents have been directed to refund a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) recovered from the petitioners terminal benefits towards the alleged excess salary. 2. The petitioner was an employee, worked under the Second Respondent/Kovilpatti Municipality. He got superannuation on 30.6.2005. He joined the second respondent/Municipality as Bill Collector in the year 1971 and put in 35 years of unblemished service record. 3. It is the stand of the petitioner that his salary was fixed by the Second Respondent/Municipality for the post of Bill Collect on and from 1.6.1988. He was drawing the salary payments from the year 1998 payable to the Bill Collector till his retirement on 30.6.2005 as determined by the Department. 4. The petitioner was informed as per impugned order of recovery proceedings dated 22.5. 2006 issued by the first respondent that excess payment of salary has been determined by the authorities and that he has drawn excess salary and that the respondents made an endeavour to recover the said sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) from his retirement benefits. The action was initiated on the basis of audit report. The respondents had not issued any notice to him in regard to the proposed action of recovery or intimated the same till the date of retirement of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Respondent/Director of Local Fund Audit has issued the impugned order dated 22.5.2006 for the recovery for the alleged excess amount of Rs.18,811/-(Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) said to have been paid to him from 1.6.1988 to 30.6.2005 from his retirement benefits. The respondents had not chosen to issue any notice to the petitioner during all these years and issued the impugned order of recovery dated 22.5.2006 after one year of petitioners retirement which is an erroneous one. 6. The petitioner made a representation on 4.8.2008 to the respondents through communication dated 4.8.2008 praying for refund of a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only)which has been recovered from him. 6. The petitioner made a representation on 4.8.2008 to the respondents through communication dated 4.8.2008 praying for refund of a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only)which has been recovered from him. In the said representation in paragraph No.2 it is also made mention of that through the petitioners State Bill Collectors Association, proper explanation has been given and the audit objection 48/90-91 has been cancelled and a letter has been sent to the Bill Collectors State General Secretary on 18.9.1992. 7. The main plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that for wrong fixation of his pay fixed in the scale of Rs. 1,200-2040 (Rupees one thousand two hundred - two thousand and forty) instead of Rs.975-1660(Rupees nine hundred and seventy five -one thousand six hundred and sixty) by the office of the second respondent with effect from 1.6.1988 and continued up to 30.6.2005 was not his fault and he is not any way responsible personally for the same and any event the recovery of amount of Rs,18,811/_ ((Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) which has been made by the second respondent is not valid in the eye of law. 8. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr.Sasikumar, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent that the petitioners pay was erroneously fixed in the scale of pay Rs.1200-2040 (Rupees one thousand two hundred -two thousand and forty) instead of Rs. 975-1660(Rupees nine hundred and seventy five -one thousand six hundred and sixty) by the office of the second respondent with effect from 1.6.1988 and therefore, the impugned order of recovery passed by the first respondent as per order dated 22.5.2006 is a valid one in the eye of law because of the simple fact no one should be allowed to go scot free by receiving excess payment and got himself enriched in a unjust manner. 9. At this stage, it is useful for this Court to refer the ingredients of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which speaks of that liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion, in and by which, that a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. 10. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case on hand, an erroneous fixation of pay in respect of the petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 (Rupees one thousand and two hundred - two thousand and forty) instead of Rs.975-1660(Rupees nine hundred and seventy five one thousand six hundred and sixty) in the office of the second respondent with effect from 1.6.1988 has been determined. 11. However, the Second Respondent/Municipality has issued necessary order for the recovery of a sum of Rs.18,811/-towards the excess payment of Pay and Allowances consequent on the rectification of the wrong fixation as per letter No. 3974/2004/C1, dated 7.2.2006. 12. The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent contends that the petitioner has given an undertaking to make good the loss caused to the Municipality by means of overpayment of pay and allowances or leave salary if found later from his D.C.R.G. as per his consent letter dated 30.6.2005. Resultantly, the second respondent has requested the Department to recover the excess payment of Rs.18,811/-(Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) from D.C.R.G. payable to the petitioner in Letter R.C. No. 3974/04/C1 dated 2.2.2006. 13. Countering the submissions of the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if salary of the petitioner has been incorrectly determined by the Second Respondent/Municipality and since the amount has been paid, no recovery need be effected because of the simple fact that for the purported wrong fixation of the petitioners pay he is not responsible in any manner either overtly or covertly. Moreover, the impugned recovery proceedings dated 22.5.2006 is a belated one. 14. In support of the contention that in case of wrong fixation of salary no recovery is to be effected by the authorities concerned the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 supp(1) SCC 18 at special page 19, wherein it is held that "upgraded the pay scales given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authorities concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee for the same may not be recovered from the appellant" 15. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 supp(1) SCC 18 at special page 19, wherein it is held that "upgraded the pay scales given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authorities concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee for the same may not be recovered from the appellant" 15. He also seeks in aid of the Division Bench order of this Court made in W.A. Nos.141 and 242 of 2005 dated 12.7.2006 reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 1025 at page No. 1206 wherein it has held that "the employee is not responsible for the wrong fixation and recovery of excess payment sought, after retirement of the employee in 2001 after 17 years of service would be highly inequitable one and cannot be allowed". 16. Applying the principles of the aforesaid decisions, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the recovery of a sum of Rs.18,811/-(Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) effected by the second respondent from the petitioner towards purported excess payment is not a correct one in the eye of law based on the reason that the petitioner is not responsible for such wrong fixation. Added further, there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner at a time when his pay has been wrongly fixed by the office of the second respondent. Therefore, this Court, as an Equitable Relief, directs the Second Respondent/Municipality to refund the excess amount of Rs,18,811/-(Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) deducted from the D.C.R.G of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, this Court perforced to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 22.5.22006 and sets aside the same in furtherance of substantial cause of justice and allows the Writ Petition to prevent the aberration of justice. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Second Respondent/Commissioner of KovilPatti Municipality is directed to refund a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only)recovered from the petitioners terminal benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Second Respondent/Commissioner of KovilPatti Municipality is directed to refund a sum of Rs.18,811/- (Rupees eighteen thousand eight hundred and eleven only)recovered from the petitioners terminal benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further liberty is granted to the first respondent to fix the correct salary of the petitioner for the purpose of determining the pension as per rules and this exercise in this regard will have to be done by the first respondent after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner, if situation so warrants. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.