Heard Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have questioned the decision of the respondents in making deduction from their retirement dues of certain amounts which is stated to have been drawn as excess salary by the petitioners. 3. Case of the petitioners is that they had served as Secretaries in different Gaon Panchayats under various Zilla Parishads and after rendering service for fairly long periods, they had superannuated from service. 4. Initially, the pay scale of Lower Division Assistants was fixed in the pay scale starting from Rs. 275 and that of Tax Collectors from Rs. 220. Pay of the Secretaries was in the pay scale starting from Rs. 220. Post of Gaon Panchayat Secretary is considered to be higher in rank than that of Lower Division Assistant but the pay scale was lower. Representation was submitted for rectifying the anomaly by enhancing the pay scale of Secretaries. Authorities in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on due consideration, enhanced the pay of the Gaon Panchayat Secretaries to the pay scale starting from Rs. 275 with a special pay of Rs. 25, which meant that the pay scale of Gaon Panchayat Secretaries became higher than that of Lower Division Assistants. 5. Following revision of pay in the year 1985, the pay scale of the Gaon Panchyat Secretaries was revised but the revision was effected on the basis of the original pay scale drawn by the Gaon Panchayat Secretaries, i.e., Rs. 220 instead of the corrected pay scale of Rs.275. On that basis, the revised pay was fixed at Rs.494 per month. When it was brought to the notice'of the authorities, necessary rectification was made by revising the pay scale taking the corrected pay scale of Rs. 275 as the base pay scale. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioners was revised and fixed at Rs.566 per month instead of Rs. 494. From July 1981, the petitioners were paid salary at Rs. 566 per month till the dates of their respective superannuation. 6. After their superannuation, the petitioners were paid their retirement dues. 275 as the base pay scale. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioners was revised and fixed at Rs.566 per month instead of Rs. 494. From July 1981, the petitioners were paid salary at Rs. 566 per month till the dates of their respective superannuation. 6. After their superannuation, the petitioners were paid their retirement dues. At the time of payment, petitioners found that substantial amounts were deducted/recovered from their retirement benefits, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the writ petition. Such deduction/recovery were made on the ground that there was excess/overdrawal of pay by the petitioners from July, 1981. According to the authorities, petitioners had drawn salary at Rs. 566 per month as against Rs.494 from July"'1981 till the dates of their superannuation and, therefore, there was excess drawal of salary of Rs. 72 (Rs.566-494) every month since July, 1981, which was recovered from the retirement dues. 7. Aggrieved, petitioners have approached this court by filing the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 8. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 6, the impugned action has been justified and the contentions of the petitioners have been disputed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no question , of overdrawal or excess payment of salary by the petitioners. It was a mistake committed by the authorities while revising the pay scale of the petitioners by taking the initial pay scale of the petitioners at Rs. 220 though it was subsequently corrected to Rs.275 with special pay of Rs.25. Revised pay of the petitioners was correctly assessed subsequently and paid at Rs. 566 with effect from July 1981. Therefore, recovery was not justified. Moreover, the petitioners were not put to notice before making the impugned recovery. Such recovery could not have been made from the retirement dues of the petitioners, more particularly from the gratuity amount. He, therefore, submits that the court should interfere in the matter and direct the respondents to refund the amounts unauthorizedly deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioners. 10. Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and supports the decision taken by the Government. 11. Submissions made have been considered. 12. He, therefore, submits that the court should interfere in the matter and direct the respondents to refund the amounts unauthorizedly deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioners. 10. Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and supports the decision taken by the Government. 11. Submissions made have been considered. 12. Before proceeding further, the statement furnished by the petitioners may be briefly noticed, which is as under : SI No. Name of the employee Date of appointment / joining Date of retirement Amount sanctioned as pensionary benefits (Rs.) Amount recovered from pensionary benefits (Rs.) Amount received as pensionary benefits (Rs.) 1 Sri Dinesh Chandra Das 1-10-1964 as Secretary at Rajapukhuri Baranti Rangamati G.P. under Kamrup Z.P. 31-10-2006 2,21,192 1,85,324 35,868 2. Sri Sarbeswar Thakuria 1-5-1969 as Secretary at Dakshin Bangaon G.P. under Kamrup Z.P. 30.9.2006 1,68,976 1,82,838 (-)13,862 3. Sri Dina Nath Saikia as Secretary at Ghoramara G.P. under Sonitpur Z.P. 30.11.2006 1,97,323 99,925 97,398 4. Sri Suren Das 1-08-1964 as Secretary at Pachim Banshal G.P. under Kamrup Z.P. 31.3.2002 1,06,119 72,954 33,165 5. Sri Khagendra HasdaAs Secretary at Jhawdanga G.P. under Dhubri Z.P. 2.5.2012 6,28,901 4,03,429 2,25,472 6. Late Narayan Talukdar 1-2-1965 as Secretary at 66 No. Santipur, G.P. under Nalbari Z.P. 29.2.2004 1,16,551 86,085 30,466 7. Haidar Hussain 2-1-1966 as Secretary at Pub-Natun Dehar G.P. under Nalbari Z.P. 31.5.2009 3,81,654 3,63,602 18,052 8. Sri Arabinda Pathak 2-2-1962 as Secretary at Pachim Chayagaon G.P. under Kamrup Z.P. 30.4.2001 1,47,477 23,585 123,892 13. Admittedly, the recoveries were made after the petitioners retired from service and from their retirement dues. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521 , which was a case of recovery of salary paid in excess, held that since the petitioners had rendered services and had received the higher pay scale due to no fault of theirs, it would only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which had already been paid to them. Accordingly, it was directed that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same. 14. Accordingly, it was directed that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same. 14. In the present case also, respondents have not been able to place any materials on record to show that fixation of pay at Rs. 566 per month in respect of the petitioners w.e.f. July 1981 was erroneous or was fixed on the basis of incorrect principles. As noticed above, the recoveries were made after retirement of the petitioners. No notice or hearing was given to the petitioners before such deductions. 15. That being the position, the petition deserves to be allowed. The deduction made by the respondents from the retirement dues of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 16. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the respondents, more particularly the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, shall examine the case of each of the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate order(s) for re-fund of the amounts deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioners. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. Writ petition is disposed of.