Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for proceedings of the respondent passed in No.9172/E3/98 dated 15.02.2011 and the proceedings passed in 835/E3/2011 dated 31.05.2011 and to quash the same with a specific direction to refund a sum of Rs.2,53,801/- to the petitioner, deducted from retirement benefits of the petitioner. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been appointed as Artisan Grade-I through employment exchange in the college of the respondent on 06.12.1982 and his service has been regularised with effect from the said date. After completing ten years of service, the petitioner has been given selection grade scale with effect from 06.12.1992. Ordinary post of Artisan Grade-I has been given the scale of Rs.3625 4900. In the meantime, the State Government has revised the scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 13.04.1998, wherein the ordinary post of Artisan Grade-I has been given a scale of pay of Rs.4000 – 100 - 6000. 3. In pursuance of the said Government Order, pay scale has been revised in Technical Education Department as per G.O.No.463 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 31.08.1998, wherein it has been clearly stated that the revision of pay scale shall take effect from 01.01.1996 notionally. As per Government Orders referred to above, the respondent by its proceedings in No.9172/E3/98 dated 16.12.1998 refixed the pay at Rs.5000 - 150 - 8000/-. On the basis of audit objection, the scale of pay of the petitioner has been revised to Rs.4300 - 100 - 6000 by the proceedings passed in No.9172/E3/98 dated 14.10.1999. The excess amount paid to the petitioner is ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Against the revision of pay scale, the petitioner has filed an Original Application in O.A.No.6640 of 1999 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai has been abolished and the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been transferred to the Principal Seat of the High court and taken on file in W.P.No.42710 of 2006. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai has been abolished and the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been transferred to the Principal Seat of the High court and taken on file in W.P.No.42710 of 2006. The said W.P.No.42710 of 2006 has been disposed of on 26.04.2010, wherein the order dated 14.10.1999 passed in proceedings No.9172/E3/98 has been set aside with a specific direction that the petitioner should be given sufficient opportunity and to pass an order afresh with regard to revision of salary of the petitioner. The respondent without giving proper opportunity, has revised scale of pay of the petitioner by its proceedings in 9172/E3/98 dated 15.02.2011. The respondent has done willful violation and disobedience to the order passed in W.P.No.42710 of 2006. The petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2011. On the same day, the respondent has passed its proceedings in 835/ E3/2011, wherein the petitioner has been allowed to retire and the alleged excess amount of Rs.2,53,801/- would be deducted from retirement benefits. Under the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed for the reliefs sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it is averred that the petitioner has been appointed temporarily as Special Class Artisan (Artisan Grade - I) through employment exchange on 06.12.1982 and he has been regularized as Special Class Artisan with effect from the said date. On completion of ten years of service in the said post, selection grade has been given to the petitioner with effect from 06.12.1982. In the meantime, the State Government has revised scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept., dated 13.04.1998. The scale of pay in the post of ordinary Grade - I Artisan is Rs.4000 - 100 - 6000. As per fitment table, post of selection grade (Artisan Grade No.I), carries salaries of Rs.5000 - 150 - 8000. As per letter dated 05.02.1999 in DTE No.37785/ A3/97, the pay scale of selection grade as indicated in the schedule of G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept., dated 13.04.1998 is higher than the pay scale of promotional post. The selection grade scale of pay should be limited to pay scale of first level promotion post. The Accountant General of Tamilnadu has conducted internal audit in July 1999, wherein pay fixation statements in the service registers of several members have been scrutinised. The selection grade scale of pay should be limited to pay scale of first level promotion post. The Accountant General of Tamilnadu has conducted internal audit in July 1999, wherein pay fixation statements in the service registers of several members have been scrutinised. The audit party has pointed out that time scale of pay of the Artisan Grade - I at the time of awarding selection grade should be restricted to the ordinary grade time scale of pay of the promotional post of Instructor that is, Rs.4300 - 100 - 6000 as per provision 04(ii) G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. Since objection has been raised in the audit report of Accountant General, pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs.4300 100 - 6000. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.6640 of 1999 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai with sinister motive and a stay has been obtained. Due to continuance of stay in Original Application No.6640 of 1999, the petitioner has derived higher pay for more than 12 years and thereby caused loss to the Government. In W.P.No.42710 of 2006, it is held that the petitioner should be given sufficient opportunity to put forth his contention. The respondent has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner has given a letter to the respondent wherein, he expressed his inclination that excess paid salary would be remitted to the Government in single instalment. The petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2011. As per letter given by the petitioner, the excess amount of Rs.2,53,801/- has been recovered and remitted to the Government. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The present Writ Petition has been filed as stated earlier so as to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records relating to proceedings of the respondent in No.9172/E3/98 dated 15.02.2011 and consequent proceedings in 835/E3/2011 dated 31.05.2011 and to quash the same with a specific direction to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.2,53,801/- deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly contended that the petitioner has been appointed through employment exchange as an Artisan Grade - I on 06.12.1982 and his post has been regularised with effect from the said date. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly contended that the petitioner has been appointed through employment exchange as an Artisan Grade - I on 06.12.1982 and his post has been regularised with effect from the said date. The petitioner has completed ten years of service and therefore, he has been conferred with selection grade with effect from 06.12.1982. In the meanwhile, the State Government has revised the pay scale as per G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 13.04.1998, wherein ordinary post of Artisan Grade – I has been given a pay scale of Rs.4000 - 100 - 6000/-. The pay scale of selection grade has been refixed at Rs.5000 - 150 - 8000. All of a sudden the respondent has passed its proceedings in No.9172/E3/98 dated 14.10.1999, wherein pay of the petitioner has been revised to Rs.4,300 - 100 - 6000/-and further directed to refund the excess amount. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has chosen to file O.A.No.6640 of 1999 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and due to its abolition, O.A.No.6640 of 1999 has been transferred to the High Court and taken on file in W.P.No.42710 of 2006 and the same has been allowed with a specific direction that the respondent should give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner with regard to refixation of his pay. The respondent without giving sufficient opportunity, has revised the pay of the petitioner as per proceedings in No.9172/E3/98 dated 15.02.2011. The petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2011 and the respondent has passed its proceedings in No.835/E3/2011 dated 31.05.2011 wherein it has been stated that the excess amount of Rs.8,53,801/-would be deducted from retirement benefits and accordingly the same has been deducted. Since the petitioner has attained superannuation and permitted to retire on 31.05.2011 the respondent is not entitled to deduct the alleged excess payment of Rs.2,53,801/-from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the present Petition has been filed for getting the reliefs sought for therein. 7. Since the petitioner has attained superannuation and permitted to retire on 31.05.2011 the respondent is not entitled to deduct the alleged excess payment of Rs.2,53,801/-from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the present Petition has been filed for getting the reliefs sought for therein. 7. In order to dispel the contentions put forth on the side of the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the petitioner has been appointed temporarily as an Artisan Grade -I on 06.12.1982 through employment exchange and since he has completed ten years of service in the same post, he has been awarded selection Grade with effect from 06.12.1982 and in the meanwhile, G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 13.04.1998 has come into existence and in pursuance of the same, the scale of the petitioner has been revised at Rs.5000 - 150 - 8000/-. The Accountant General of Tamilnadu has conducted audit during July 1999, wherein it is found out that the scale of pay fixed to the petitioner is erroneous and even though the petitioner has been conferred selection grade, he is entitled to get pay at Rs.4300 - 100 - 6000/- and on the basis of audit objection, the scale of pay of the petitioner has been refixed as per proceedings No.9172/E3/98 dated 14.10.1999 in the scale of pay of Rs.4300 - 100 6000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and with monetary benefits from 01.01.1998. The petitioner with mala fide intention has filed O.A.No.6640 of 1999 before the Administrative Tribunal, Chennai wherein he obtained stay and the same has been extended for a period of 12 years. On the basis of stay granted in O.A.No.6640 of 1999, the petitioner has derived higher pay for more than 12 years and as per order passed in W.P.No.42710 of 2006, sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner himself as given a letter, wherein he expressed to the effect that excess salary would be deducted from his retiral benefits. Under the said circumstances the proceedings dated 31.05.2011 has been passed and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the present petition and altogether the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. On the basis of the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the petition? 9. 8. On the basis of the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the petition? 9. Even though in the petition it has been averred to the effect that in W.P.No.42710 of 2006 a specific direction has been given to the respondent for the purpose of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before fixing revision of pay, no opportunity has been given and therefore, refixation of pay made by the respondent is erroneous, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not stressed the aforesaid factual aspect. 10. The main argument put forth on the side of the petitioner is that the petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2011 and he has been permitted to retire on the same date. Under the said circumstances, the respondent is totally barred from making deduction of the alleged excess salary of Rs.2,53,801/-from retirement benefit of the petitioner. To put it in nut-shell, the only contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is that since the petitioner has attained superannuation on 31.05.2011 and permitted to retire on the same date, the respondent is not entitled to deduct the amount in question from retirement benefit of the petitioner. 11. In support of the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner, the decision reported in 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 18 (Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others) is relied upon, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "Upgraded pay scale given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee. In such circumstances, recovery of the payment already made, restrained." 12. In fact, this Court has scanned the entire decision referred to supra, wherein it has not been specifically stated to the effect that on superannuation, dues from retiring employee cannot be recovered from his retiral benefits. Therefore, the decision accited on the side of the petitioner is not helpful to the contention raised on his side. 13. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader has befittingly contended to the effect that on the basis of audit objection, the scale of pay fixed for selection grade has been refixed as per proceedings No.9172/E3/98 dated 14.10.1999. Therefore, the decision accited on the side of the petitioner is not helpful to the contention raised on his side. 13. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader has befittingly contended to the effect that on the basis of audit objection, the scale of pay fixed for selection grade has been refixed as per proceedings No.9172/E3/98 dated 14.10.1999. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.6640 of 1999 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, wherein he obtained stay. On the strength of stay, he has drawn higher pay for more than twelve years and subsequently, as per direction given in W.P.No.42710 of 2006 sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner himself has given a letter, wherein he has expressly given his willingness to the effect that excess amount would be deducted from his retiral benefits and accordingly he has been permitted to retire on 31.05.2011 and the excess amount of Rs.2,53,801 has been deducted from his retiral benefits. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot urge to the effect that after his retirement no deduction would be made from his retiral benefits. 14. As expounded earlier, against the proceedings No.9172/E3/98 dated 14.10.1999 the petitioner has filed O.A.No.6640 of 1999 and he obtained an interim stay. On the basis of interim stay he has drawn higher pay for more than 12 years. As per order passed in W.P.No.42710 of 2006 sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner himself has given a letter dated 09.09.2010, wherein it has been clearly stated to the effect that excess salary paid to him can be deducted from his retiral benefits. 15. The only contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is that the petitioner has attained superannuation and permitted to retire on 31.05.2011 and since he has been permitted to retire on 31.05.2011 no recovery could be made, after his retirement, from retiral benefits. 16. It has already been pointed out that no mention has been made with regard to the said aspect in the decision referred to supra and further there is no specific provision of law to the effect that Government dues cannot be recovered after retirement. 16. It has already been pointed out that no mention has been made with regard to the said aspect in the decision referred to supra and further there is no specific provision of law to the effect that Government dues cannot be recovered after retirement. Therefore, it is quite clear that the entire contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is totally baseless and further as pointed out earlier, the petitioner himself has given the letter dated 09.09.2010, wherein he clearly expressed to the effect that excess salary could be deducted from his retiral benefits. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that the recovery made by the respondent is erroneous. 17. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been appointed as Artisan Grade-I, through employment exchange on 06.12.1982 and since he served for a period of ten years in the same post he has been conferred selection grade with effect from 06.12.1982. The respondent as per G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 13.04.1998 has revised scale of pay of the petitioner. But the same has been objected by the audit party and pursuant to objections raised by the Accountant General of Tamilnadu, scale of pay of the petitioner has been refixed and the same has been challenged by way of filing O.A.No.6640 of 1999 on the file of Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and due to its abolition O.A.No.6640 of 1996 has been transferred to the file of Principal Seat of this Court and the same has been disposed of with a specific direction that the petitioner should be given sufficient opportunity. The petitioner has attained superannuation and permitted to retire on 31.05.2011. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the relevant provision of law. 18. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a Government servant. It is also equally an admitted fact that he has been permitted to retire on 31.05.2011. Rule 70 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules 1978 reads as follows: Recovery and adjustment of Government dues:- (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. It is also equally an admitted fact that he has been permitted to retire on 31.05.2011. Rule 70 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules 1978 reads as follows: Recovery and adjustment of Government dues:- (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues as ascertainable- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted therefrom". 19. Even a cursory look of the said provision, it is made clear that every retiring Government servant should clear all Government dues before his retirement. If a retiring Government Servant has failed to clear Government dues, a cash deposit equallant to dues ascertained, can be taken from him. Further, the dues ascertained, can be recovered from gratuity payable to him. 20. In the instant case, the admitted contention put forth on either side is that the respondent has recovered a sum of Rs.2,53,801/-from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. As per Rule 70 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 the respondent is having legal authority to recover the said amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings mentioned in the petition passed by the respondent are factually and legally sustainable and the same are not liable to be quashed. 21. In (2010) 1 SCC 440 (Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others Vs. Israil Khan and others) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "there is no principle that excess payment made to employees should not be recovered by employer. Recovery is permitted if excess payment is made as a result of misrepresentation, fraud or collusion. Courts can refuse recovery of excess payment when it was (a) not made on account of misrepresentation or fraud or, (b) by applying a wrong principle, the interpretation of which is subsequently found to be erroneous." 22. In the instant case, in the decision mentioned supra, the circumstance under which recovery cannot be made, has not arisen. Therefore, it is quite clear that the present petition is not legally maintainable. 23. In 2012 AIR SCW 4742 (Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. In the instant case, in the decision mentioned supra, the circumstance under which recovery cannot be made, has not arisen. Therefore, it is quite clear that the present petition is not legally maintainable. 23. In 2012 AIR SCW 4742 (Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. V. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.), the Honourable Apex Court has held that "Any amount paid/received without 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 unjust, enrichment. Recovery of excess paid public money cannot be limited only to cases of fraud or misrepresentation. Concept of fraud or misrepresentation is not applicable to such situation. Excess payment made to teachers/ principals due to wrong pay fixation is liable to be recovered. Moreso when there was clear stipulation in the fixation order that in case of wrong/irregular fixation the institution in which the employee works would be responsible for recovery of over payment made." 24. From a close reading of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently, it is easily discernible that any amount paid/ received without authority of law, can always be recovered. 25. In the instant case, as pointed out in many places, pay scale of the petitioner has been revised as per objection made by the Accountant General of Tamilnadu. But the petitioner has unnecessarily filed O.A.No.6640 of 1996 on the file of the Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and obtained a stay and the same continued for a period of 12 years and in pursuance of the same he has drawn higher scale of pay and therefore, it is his bounden duty to repay the same. In fact the petitioner has withdrawn excess salary without authority of any law and as per the dictum given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same can be recovered at any point of time. 26. In the light of the foregoing narration of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is not at all sustainable and altogether the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 27. In fine, this Writ Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.