Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, both the Writ Appeals are heard together and a Common Judgment is being passed. 2. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Judge, dated 09.04.2013, made in W.P.(MD).Nos.5395 and 5396 of 2007. 3. The Writ Petition, in W.P.[MD].No.5395 of 2007, was filed challenging the order of the fourth appellant herein, dated 10.10.1994 and for a direction to the appellants to regularize the service of the respondent herein, as Engineering Instructor, from the date of his original appointment, at P.K.Nadar School, Madurai. 4. The Writ Petition, in W.P.[MD].No.5396 of 2007, was filed questioning the validity of the order, dated 14.12.1994, passed by the fourth appellant herein and for a direction to the appellants to regularize the service of the respondent, as Engineering Instructor, from the date of his original appointment, at P.K.Nadar School, Madurai. 5. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent herein was appointed, as an Engineering Instructor, on 08.11.1970, at P.K.Nadar High School, Thirumangalam, Madurai, and subsequently, re-appointed in June 1971, for a period of one year, till 31.05.1972. He was terminated from service, on 11.01.1972. Assailing the correctness of the order of termination, the respondent filed an appeal before the Director of School Education, Chennai, which was allowed, directing reinstatement of the respondent in service. Again, by proceedings, dated 26.01.1973, he was terminated from service, which was challenged by the respondent, by filing an appeal in C.M.A.No.245 of 1976, which was allowed, on 24.03.1981, directing reinstatement of the respondent in service. The said order was challenged by the management, by filing W.P.No.2271 of 1981, which was allowed, on 10.03.1988. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent filed a Writ Appeal, in W.A.No.693 of 1988. The said Writ Appeal was allowed, by a Division Bench of this Court, on 30.03.1989, in favour of the respondent. In the meanwhile, the management closed down the Engineering Section in their institution and surrendered the staff, who were absorbed in the Government Schools. The respondent herein was absorbed in the Government Higher Secondary School, Melur, as an Engineering Instructor, on 21.09.1983. The Service Register of the respondent was opened and his designation was shown as "Engineering Instructor". 6. In the meanwhile, the management closed down the Engineering Section in their institution and surrendered the staff, who were absorbed in the Government Schools. The respondent herein was absorbed in the Government Higher Secondary School, Melur, as an Engineering Instructor, on 21.09.1983. The Service Register of the respondent was opened and his designation was shown as "Engineering Instructor". 6. When the matter stood thus, the fourth appellant herein, by proceedings, dated 10.10.1994, stated that in the Service Register, the post of the respondent was wrongly entered as "Engineering Instructor", instead of "General Machinist", and therefore, his pay was wrongly fixed, as a result of which, the fourth appellant passed an order, dated 14.12.1994, directing recovery of the excess payment made to the respondent. The above said orders were questioned by the respondent, by filing W.P.(MD).Nos.5395 and 5396 of 2007. The learned Judge of this Court, by order, dated 09.04.2013, allowed the said Writ Petitions, quashing the impugned orders passed by the fourth appellant, directing the appellants to regularize the services of the respondent as an Engineering Instructor, so as to enable him to get all the monetary and service benefits. In such circumstances, the appellants have come up with the present Writ Appeals. 7. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the respondent was not at all appointed as an Engineering Instructor and he was appointed only as General Machinist for Plus Two Vocational Courses. The respondent joined as General Machinist, on 30.09.1983 and his Service Register was opened, during March 1984. However, by inadvertently, his designation was wrongly shown as "Engineering Instructor", instead of "General Machinist". Based on his wrong entry in the Service Register, as Engineering Instructor, from the date of his joining, the salary was drawn and paid to him, for the post of Engineering Instructor, till 30.09.1994. Such a mistake was found out only during the year, 1993, and therefore, necessary corrections were directed to be made in the Service Register of the respondent, by designating him as "General Machinist". The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the respondent is not entitled to salary for the post of Engineering Instructor, and hence, the orders passed by the fourth appellant ought not to have been set aside by the learned Judge. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the respondent is not entitled to salary for the post of Engineering Instructor, and hence, the orders passed by the fourth appellant ought not to have been set aside by the learned Judge. 8. Per contra, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that the respondent was subjected to certain disciplinary actions by the management. The termination orders passed against the respondent were set at naught and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service. The respondent joined as General Machinist, on 30.09.1983 and his Service Register was opened, during March 1984. However, the fourth appellant, in the year 1993, suddenly, woke up and came to the conclusion that by inadvertently, the designation of the respondent was entered into in the Service Register "as Engineering Instructor", instead of "General Machinist". The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, relies upon the proceedings of the fourth appellant, dated 21.01.1992, which shows that the respondent was treated as an Engineering Instructor and he was sanctioned periodical increments and he was also sanctioned and given the benefits of the fourth and fifth pay commission. The learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation against the respondent that he made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud. Based on the above, the learned counsel prays for the dismissal of the Writ Appeals. 9. We have considered the above submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the records carefully. 10. From the facts, narrated above, it is clear that there were disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, as a result of which, the respondent was terminated from service. His termination orders were held to be invalid. In the meantime, the management, where the respondent was working, closed the Engineering Section in their institution and surrendered the staff, who were absorbed in the Government Schools. The respondent herein was absorbed in the Government Higher Secondary School, Melur, as an Engineering Instructor, on 21.09.1983. The Service Register of the respondent was opened and his designation was shown as Engineering Instructor. Based on his entry in the Service Register, as Engineering Instructor, the respondent was drawing salary, for the post of Engineering Instructor, from the date of his joining, till 30.09.1994. The Service Register of the respondent was opened and his designation was shown as Engineering Instructor. Based on his entry in the Service Register, as Engineering Instructor, the respondent was drawing salary, for the post of Engineering Instructor, from the date of his joining, till 30.09.1994. However, after a lapse of ten years, it was found that the respondent was not at all absorbed as Engineering Instructor and he was absorbed only as General Machinist. Thus, we are of the considered view that having extracted the work for a period of ten years as an Engineering Instructor, for the mistake committed by the appellants, the respondent cannot be penalized. 11. Apart from the above, it is not the case of the appellants that the respondent made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud so as to claim the salary, attached to the post of Engineering Instructor. There are catena of decisions to the effect that unless if there is any misrepresentation or suppression of fact, the amount cannot be recovered from the employee concerned. On this aspect, we are fortified by a latest Judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 2013 (6) MLJ 736(SC), Union of India and others Vs Shri Bhanwar Lal Mundan, wherein, in Paragraph No:23, the Supreme Court had, once again, reiterated the settled law:- “Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court are set aside directing fixation of pension on the base of pay drawn by the respondent. However, as conceded to by Mr.Singh, there shall be no recovery from the excess amount paid to the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. Applying the said Judgment to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the Writ Appeals filed by the appellants are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the order, dated 09.04.2013, made in W.P.(MD).Nos.5395 and 5396 of 2007, is upheld and the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.