Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition No.31629 of 2002 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed in Memo No.117352/144/G17/G171/2000-3 dated 16.06.2001 on the file of the first respondent and consequential Proceedings made in Memo No.852/312/A.1/F. Pay Anomaly/2002 dated 01.06.2002 and Memo No.852/312/A1/F.Pay Anomaly/2002 dated 26.06.2002 both on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. 2. Writ Petition No.31630 of 2002 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed in Memo No.082898/511/G17/G171/94-29 dated 29.05.2001 on the file of the first respondent and consequential Proceedings made in Memo No.782/565/A.1/F. Pay Anomaly/2002 dated 01.06.2002 and Memo No.782/565/A.1/F. Pay Anomaly/2002-1 dated 26.06.2002 both on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. 3. The two writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants in July, 1971 in the respondent Electricity Board. They were promoted as Assistant in April, 1980. In the year 1992, they made representations for fixing their pay on par with their juniors with effect from 4.10.1985. In the case of Mr.K.Ramanathan, based on the representation dated 22.6.1994, the first respondent passed an order on 5.6.1995 refixing the pay at Rs.1,035/- with effect from 4.10.1985. In the case of P.Thangaraj, based on the representation dated 24.9.1992, the first respondent passed an order on 18.10.1994 refixing the pay at Rs.1,035/- with effect from 4.10.1985. Thereafter, both the petitioners were promoted as Account Supervisor in December 1996 and they were working as such. After nearly four years, in the case of K.Ramanathan, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 27.10.2000 calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why the order refixing the pay should not be cancelled. On 9.2.2001, he gave his explanation which has not been accepted and the first respondent passed an order on 16.6.2001 whereby he cancelled the earlier order. Consequently, the second respondent passed an order on 1.6.2002 revising the pay at Rs.1,000/-. In the case of P.Thangaraj, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice on 9.10.2000 calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why the order refixing the pay should not be cancelled. No reply/explanation was given by him. On 29.5.2001, the first respondent passed an order whereby he cancelled the earlier order. Consequently, the second respondent passed an order on 1.6.2002 revising the pay at Rs.965/-. No reply/explanation was given by him. On 29.5.2001, the first respondent passed an order whereby he cancelled the earlier order. Consequently, the second respondent passed an order on 1.6.2002 revising the pay at Rs.965/-. These two orders are under challenge. 4. The respondents have been served and counter affidavits have been filed. Insofar as the merit of the order passed by the first respondent cancelling the earlier orders refixing the pay of the petitioners are concerned, it is to be noticed that the first respondent has clearly stated the error in the fixation of pay made earlier in para 4 of the order stating that the basis on which the refixation was done was erroneous and contrary to the Boards Proceedings. On factual aspects of the case, cancelling the earlier order, there is no serious dispute raised by the petitioners and that cannot be also. 5. The main plea on behalf of the two petitioners is primarily on the ground that the earlier orders, namely, 5.6.1995 in the case of K.Ramanathan and 18.10.1994 in the case of P.Thangaraj were passed by the then first respondent authority after considering the claim in detail and thereafter, promotion was granted and the matter was let to rest. It is after nearly four years that the present proceeding has been initiated by the respondent Department. The pay fixation was not based on misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners and the payment was made only after the competent authority, viz., the first respondent accepted the plea and passed the order in the year 1995 and 1994 respectively. Since the refixation of pay was made on a wrong principle in calculating the pay based on an improper interpretation of the Boards proceedings or the like, the petitioners are not at fault. Therefore, the pay that has been granted based on the revised order and received and consumed by the petitioners, should not be recovered. This plea of the petitioners is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in a number of decisions, more particularly, the one reported in Supreme 1 (2009) 163 = SCC 3(2009) 475 Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. - State of Bihar and others. 6. This plea of the petitioners is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in a number of decisions, more particularly, the one reported in Supreme 1 (2009) 163 = SCC 3(2009) 475 Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. - State of Bihar and others. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand pleaded that the error in fixation of pay has been properly explained in the impugned proceedings and the petitioners are duly put on notice and the matter was considered on merits and a detailed order has been passed. Therefore, the order under challenge should not be set aside and the refixation of pay passed by the second respondent should not be altered. 7. This plea of the respondents counsel is justified as the first respondent authority has duly considered the objection of one of the petitioners and based on the Boards Proceedings came to the conclusion that the earlier order passed was erroneous and after following the due procedure of issuing a show-cause notice asking for explanation passed the impugned proceedings which does not appear to be incorrect in any manner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent and the consequential order of the second respondent except in relation to recovery. 8. As far as the plea of bona fide payment of salary and therefore, the same should not be recovered is concerned, a few facts will be relevant for consideration. The original order was passed somewhere in the year 1995 and 1994 respectively and thereafter, the petitioners have been receiving the revised salary and they were promoted as Account Supervisor. Thereafter, for more than four years, the matter was put to rest and all of a sudden proceedings have been initiated by issuance of show-cause notice. The earlier order refixing the pay has become final for a long number of years. The excess amount now claimed by the respondents was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. On the contrary, it was based on the order passed by the first respondent, the competent authority. Even in the subsequent order which is under challenge in the present writ petition there is no statement to the effect that misrepresentation or fraud was played by the employee. 9. On the contrary, it was based on the order passed by the first respondent, the competent authority. Even in the subsequent order which is under challenge in the present writ petition there is no statement to the effect that misrepresentation or fraud was played by the employee. 9. On going through the main proceedings, it is clear that the excess payment was made by applying wrong principle in calculating the pay, that is evident from the reading of the order. Therefore, the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the two parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors vs. - State of Bihar and others reported in SCC 3 (2009) 475 and the relevant portion reads as follows:- “(27.) 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. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relief 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 vs. State of Haryana 1 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, 2 (1994) 2 SCC 521 ; Union of India vs. M.Bhaskar, 3 (1996) 4 SCC 416 ; V.Ganga Ram vs. Regional Jt. Director, 4 (1997) 6 SCC 139 ; Col.B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India & Ors. 5 (2006) 11 SCC 709 , Purshottam Lal Das & Ors., vs. State of Bihar, 6 (2006) 11 SCC 492 ; Punjab National Bank & Ors. Director, 4 (1997) 6 SCC 139 ; Col.B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India & Ors. 5 (2006) 11 SCC 709 , Purshottam Lal Das & Ors., vs. State of Bihar, 6 (2006) 11 SCC 492 ; Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr., 7 (2006) 8 SCC 647 ; and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr., 8 (2000)10 SCC 99 . (28.) Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 10. The present cases do not fall within the exception as mentioned in the Apex Courts decision. In this case, the show-cause notice and the orders have been passed after more than four years of the original order. The petitioners have proved that they did not misrepresent or mislead the authority and it is only because of the error in the order of the first respondent that the pay has been wrongly fixed which was noticed later and subsequently corrected and the present orders are passed. They are therefore, entitled to protection against recovery as equitable remedy in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In such view of the matter, the petitioners in these cases are entitled to equitable relief insofar as recovery alone. They are therefore, entitled to protection against recovery as equitable remedy in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In such view of the matter, the petitioners in these cases are entitled to equitable relief insofar as recovery alone. The order of the first and the second respondents insofar as the recovery of excess pay is concerned is set aside. The order of the first respondent under challenge cancelling the earlier order and the consequential order of the second respondent with regard to fixation of pay is upheld. Both the Writ Petitions are partly allowed as above. No costs.