ORDER: These five writ petitioners are working as First Grade Warders or upgraded First Grade Warders and are at present posted to work at Arur Sub Jail and in one case Sub Jail, Uthangarai. By the impugned order dated 23.07.2012, the second respondent informed them that pay fixation given to them with effect from 01.01.2009 on par with one P.Manickam, who was working as upgraded Warder Grade-I in District Jail, Athur has been correctly fixed earlier. But, however, the subsequent fixations granted have been objected to by the Audit report for the year 2009-2010. The first respondent informed them that the pay fixation wrongly fixed has to be set at right and that the excess amount should be recovered in equal installments from the salary payable from July, 2012. 2. Contending that the said recovery was illegal, it was stated that no opportunity was given to them and even if any excess amount paid by way of misrepresentation, that amount cannot be recovered in the light of the an unreported judgment of this court in W.A.No.1302 of 2006, dated 19.03.2009. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the operative portion of the division bench order is set out, which reads as follows : "As far as the recovery of excess salary, or excess payment made to an employee, the law is well settled. If the excess payment is made on the misrepresentation of the employee concerned, the State Government would certainly be entitled to direct for recovery of such excess payment. On the other hand, if the excess payment is made by the State even though by mistake, such excess payment cannot be recovered. To support the above, we may refer to the following judgments in (1) Col.B.J.Akkara (Retd) Vs. Government of India and others reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 709, (2) Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121, (3) Union of India Vs. M.Bhaskar reported in (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967 and (4) V.Gangaram Vs. Regional Joint Director reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652 apart from referring to the judgment of the Apex Court referred by the learned Single Judge." 3. M.Bhaskar reported in (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967 and (4) V.Gangaram Vs. Regional Joint Director reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652 apart from referring to the judgment of the Apex Court referred by the learned Single Judge." 3. Except placing reliance upon the aforesaid passage quoted from the division bench order, the petitioners have not made out any case for interfering with the impugned order. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in ChandiPrasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein all these contentions have been considered and in paragraphs 7 to 16, it was observed as follows : "7. We may also indicate that when the revised pay scale/pay fixation was fixed on the basis of the 5th Central Pay Scale, a condition was superimposed which reads as follows: “In the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution shall be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension.” The appellants are further bound by that condition as well. The facts, mentioned hereinabove, would clearly demonstrate that the excess salary was paid due to irregular/wrong pay fixation by the District Education Officer concerned. The question is whether the appellants can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part, as contended. 8. We are of the considered view, after going through the various judgments cited at the Bar, that this Court has not laid down any principle of law that only if there is misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the money in getting the excess pay, the amount paid due to irregular/wrong fixation of pay be recovered. 9. ShyamBabu Verma case1was a three-Judge Bench judgment, in that case the higher pay scale was erroneously paid in the year 1973, the same was sought to be recovered in the year 1984 after a period of eleven years. The Court felt that the sudden deduction of the pay scale from Rs330-560 to Rs330-480 after several years of implementation of the said pay scale had not only affected financially but even the seniority of the petitioners. The Court felt that the sudden deduction of the pay scale from Rs330-560 to Rs330-480 after several years of implementation of the said pay scale had not only affected financially but even the seniority of the petitioners. Under such circumstance, this Court had taken the view that it would not be just and proper to recover any excess amount paid. 10. In Sahib Ram case2 a two-Judge Bench of this Court noticed that the appellants therein did not possess the required educational qualification and consequently would not be entitled to the relaxation but having granted the relaxation and having paid the salary on the revised scales, it was ordered that the excess payment should not be recovered applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. In our view, this judgment is inapplicable to the facts of this case. In Yogeshwar Prasad case4, a two-Judge Bench of this Court after referring to the abovementioned judgments took the view that the grant of higher pay could not be recovered unless it was a case of misrepresentation or fraud. On facts, neither misrepresentation nor fraud could be attributed to the appellants therein and hence, this Court restrained the recovery of the excess amount paid. 11. We may in this respect refer to the judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Col. B.J. Akkara case5 where this Court after referring to ShyamBabu Verma case1, Sahib Ram case2 and a few other decisions held as follows: (Col. B.J. Akkara case5, SCC pp.728-29, para 28) “28. Such relief, restraining recovery back of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” 12. Later, a three-Judge Bench in Syed Abdul Qadir case6, after referring to ShyamBabu Verma1, Col. B.J. Akkara5, etc. restrained the department from recovery of excess amount paid, but held as follows: (Syed Abdul Qadir case6, SCC pp.491-92, para 59) “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” (emphasis added) We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case6 such a direction was given keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them. 13. 13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers’ money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in SyedAbdul Qadir case6 and in Col. B.J. Akkara case5, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered. 16. The appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. 16. The appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order that the excess payment made be recovered from the appellant’s salary in twelve equal monthly instalments starting from October 2012." 4. Therefore, reliance placed upon the order of the division bench does not survive for any consideration in favour of the petitioners. Hence all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.