JUDGMENT : DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The Petitioner who is working as Senior Manager (Technical Services) at Darlipali Super Thermal Power Project of N.T.P.C., Jharsuguda has filed this application seeking following reliefs: (1) Issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of writ of mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not continue to be paid his emoluments as he was paid in the month of May, 2011 declaring that the unanimous deductions are unauthorized & illegal with a further direction to make immediate payment of the amounts recovered; (2) If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause and/or show insufficient and/or false cause, make the said Rule Nisi absolute; (3) Pass any other appropriate order/orders, direction/directions & grant any other relief/reliefs to which the Petitioner is entitled & (4) Allow the writ application with costs. 2. The fact of the case in nut-shell is that the Petitioner joined in N.T.P.C. in March, 1993 as 'Engineering Executive Trainee' & in 1997 he was promoted to the post of 'Senior Engineer'. In 2000 he was employed at Eastern Region Headquarters. Thereafter, in 2001 he got promotion as 'Deputy Manager' & subsequently as 'Manager' in the year 2004. In June, 2008 he was promoted to the post of Senior Manager & posted in the Eastern Region-II Headquarters at Bhubaneswar & thereafter was transferred to DSTPP, Jharsuguda & continued as Senior Manager Technical Services. So far as his pay slip May, 2011 under Annexure-1 is concerned, his Basic pay was Rs.61,730 & net pay was Rs.79, 154 as computed by his employer i.e. the Opp. Parties after deduction of tax & other charges. His salary was stopped in the month of June, 2011. Therefore, on 01.07.2011 he wrote a letter making a query for divulging the reasons for such stoppage of salary. On 05.07.2011 Rs.23,1 00 was released towards his salary as against June, 2011 after unauthorized deduction of RS.1,20,042 out of the total gross earning of RS.1,43,142.30. The deductions were to the tune of 84% of the total earnings & under such circumstances the Petitioner submitted an Inter Office Memo (10M) on 15.07.2011 vide Annexure-2 to Opp. On 05.07.2011 Rs.23,1 00 was released towards his salary as against June, 2011 after unauthorized deduction of RS.1,20,042 out of the total gross earning of RS.1,43,142.30. The deductions were to the tune of 84% of the total earnings & under such circumstances the Petitioner submitted an Inter Office Memo (10M) on 15.07.2011 vide Annexure-2 to Opp. Parties with a prayer to disclose (i) the root cause of recovery (ii) if there is a mistake, what is the total amount to be recovered (iii) the mode of recovery of excess amount paid to Income Tax & (iv) the status of Provident Fund contribution. In response to the same, a clarification was given on. 21.07.2011 in Annexure-3, by the G.G.M.(ERP-Fin) stating that the' root cause of recovery is wrong basic pay paid to the Petitioner since April, 2000. In reply to the same, the Petitioner indicated in Inter Office Memo on 27.07.2011 that the errors if any in the salary was due to the mistake of the employer for which he cannot be ponalised & such error cannot be attributed to him' on the ground of misappropriation or fraud vide Annexure-4. 3. The Petitioner relies upon Annexure-5 series the subsequent revised pay slip given to him which indicates that during June, 2011 his basic pay has been shown as Rs.58,560 as against the basic pay of Rs.61,730 mentioned in the pay slip of May, 2011 under Annexure-1. 4. On being noticed Opp. Parties appeared & filed their counter affidavit & specifically stated that without availing alternative remedy the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. On merits it is stated that while considering a request of revision pay anomaly claim of one executive at Eastern Region Headquarters-II, namely, D.K. Mohanty, employee No.006238, which was based on the pay received by the Petitioner, the Corporate Finance Department reviewed the basic pay of the Petitioner, in course of which Eastern Region Headquarters-II & ER HQ-1 was asked to provide details of basic pay of the Petitioner since 1997 with all its' revisions. In course of verification, it was found that the Petitioner was paid an increment in February, 2002 though he was not entitled for any annual or promotional increment as his annual increment was due on 01.04.2002. Subsequently, again in April, 2002 regular increment was released in his favour. In course of verification, it was found that the Petitioner was paid an increment in February, 2002 though he was not entitled for any annual or promotional increment as his annual increment was due on 01.04.2002. Subsequently, again in April, 2002 regular increment was released in his favour. Therefore, two increments were released by mistake in his favour which was not as per the prevalent policy of NTPC, which is only once annually. Since the error had taken place during April, 2000 to April, 2002, the pay fixation of the Petitioner was required to be regularized by making correction of the aforesaid mistake in terms of the pay fixation Rules with recovery of excess payment made to him. Thereafter, the Finance Department had suggested causing recovery of the excess payment made to him. Accordingly, on 30.06.2011 the DGM (Fin-ERP) had apprised him of the fact of inadvertent mistake committed in releasing two increments in his favour in the year 2002 i.e. in February & April & the excess payment made is recoverable from his salary. He requested the Petitioner to suggest his preferred method of monthly recovery so that the entire excess amount would be recovered within a reasonable time to avoid adverse comments from the Auditors. When the matter was under discussion there was a little delay in settling payment of salary of the Petitioner for the month of June, 2011. Therefore, the Petitioner sought for clarification through his Inter Office Memo dated 15.07.2011 vide Annexure-2 & the same was replied in Annexure-3 on 21.07.2011 though it has been wrongly dated as 21.06.2011. In spite of the said clarification, the Petitioner also issued on 22.07.2011 in Inter Office Memo vide Annexure4 indicating that if at all any error exists in respect of his pay fixation, the same is the responsibility of the employer for which he cannot be penalized for the error committed by the employer. 5. Mr. B. Maharana, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while stopping the salary in Annexure-2 dated 15.07.2011, neither any notice was given to the Petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted giving due opportunity with regard to the claim made by the Opp. Party. 5. Mr. B. Maharana, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while stopping the salary in Annexure-2 dated 15.07.2011, neither any notice was given to the Petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted giving due opportunity with regard to the claim made by the Opp. Party. Sudden stoppage of the salary has grossly prejudiced the Petitioner & such recovery having been done without compliance of the principle of natural justice, this Court should set aside the same & issue necessary direction to allow the Petitioner to get the salary as he was drawing before. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana & ors, 1995 AIR SCW 1780 passed in Civil Appeal NO.6868 of 1994 disposed of on 15.10.2008, & Purshottamlal Das & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors, (2006) II SCC 492 & Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal NO.5056 of 2002. 6. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties strenuously urged that the action taken by the Opp. Parties is in conformity with .the provisions of law. In as much as alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner, he should not have approached this Court directly invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. On merits, it is stated that when the mistake was detected, the authority has got the power to rectify the same which has been done in the present case thereby the action taken by the authority is well within the parameter of the provisions of the law. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Chandiprasad Uniyal & ors v. State of Uttarakhand & ors, (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 7. On the basis of the factual matrix narrated above, it is the admitted fact that the Petitioner was allowed to draw basic pay of Rs.61,730 in the pay slip of May, 2011. Due to mistake in payment of the basic pay, the authorities have revised the same to RS.58,590 & accordingly directed for recovery of the differential amount which has been paid inadvertently to the Petitioner due' to wrong calculation. In Sahib Ram (supra) the Appellant did not possess the required educational qualification for which he was not entitled to get relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. In Sahib Ram (supra) the Appellant did not possess the required educational qualification for which he was not entitled to get relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the Appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale, but the same was not on account of any misrepresentation made by the Appellant that the benefit of higher pay-scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the Appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under such circumstance, the Apex Court held that the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the Appellant. In the case of Sahib Singh (supra) while considering the question that the Executive Engineer had no authority to give a higher scale of pay & whether the Executive Engineer who had issued the order earlier was justified in withdrawing the salary on 12.12.2000 & direct for recovery of excess salary paid, the Apex Court held that the excess amount paid between 1997 to 2000 shall not be recovered as the payment was not on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee concerned & the department had paid the said excess amounts being bonafide under the impression that the employee is entitled to such higher pay scale. In Purshottamlal Das & Ors (supra) the Apex Court held that even though the employee reverted back in a peculiar circumstances no recovery shall be made from the amount already paid in respect of promotional post. Taking into consideration the judgements of the Apex Court, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the benefit which has been extended to the Petitioner should not have been recovered by the authority pursuant to Annexure-2 & such recovery is not in compliance with the law laid down by the Apex Court mentioned (supra). In Chandiprasad Uniyal & others (supra), the Apex Court in paras-13, 14 & 15 held as follows: "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. 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 & 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 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- & the payee are .at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority or law & 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 Syed Abdul Qadir case'& in Col. B.J. Akkara case. the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered". 8. In view of law laid down, the Apex Court directed that the excess payment made to the employee be recovered from his salary in 12 equal monthly installments. It is the consistent plea of the Opp. B.J. Akkara case. the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered". 8. In view of law laid down, the Apex Court directed that the excess payment made to the employee be recovered from his salary in 12 equal monthly installments. It is the consistent plea of the Opp. Parties in their counter affidavit that the benefit extended to the Petitioner is an increment in February, 2002 with arrear from January, 2002 though he was not entitled for any annual or promotional increment as his annual increment was due on 01.04.2002 & again in April 2002 regular increment was released in his favour thereby two increments were released in his favour by mistake which was not as per the prevalent policy of NTPC. In West 8engal Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company Ltd. (2001) II SCC 451 = AIR 2001 SC 682 the Apex Court categorically held that a mistake may be universal or mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is unintentional it ceases to be a mistake. As it appears from the correspondence made between the Petitioner & the Officers which has been annexed as Annexure-3 & the counter affidavit the benefit has been extended to the Petitioner by mistake by the authority. As such law is well settled by the Apex Court that if a mistake is committed by an authority the same can be rectified. If the mistake is brought to the notice of the authorities, they have every right to make such correction. 9. In the present case, inadvertent mistake was committed by the authorities in releasing two increments to the Petitioner in the year 2002 i.e. in February & April & since such payment has been made inadvertently is recoverable & as such the same shall be recovered from the salary of the Petitioner. In view of the ratio decided in Chandiprasad Uniyal & ors (supra), the excess salary paid to the Petitioner due to inadvertent mistake in releasing two increments in the year 2002 i.e. in February & April should be recovered in 10 monthly equal installments after adjusting the amount already recovered. With the above observation & direction. the Writ Petition is disposed of.