Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5429 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.5774 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Weaving Instructor Grade I at the Government Juvenile Home, Ranipet, Vellore District (the then North Arcot District), by an order dated 22.11.1993. He was given scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. 3. Under the V Pay Commission, the scale of pay of the Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom) was revised to Rs.1200-2040 and the scale of pay of the Weaving Instructor Grade I (Handloom) was revised to Rs.950-1500. A One Man Commission was appointed to rectify the pay anomaly for some of the categories and based on the recommendations of the One Man Commission, the pay scale of Weaving Instructor Grade I (Handloom) was also revised to Rs.1200-2040. 4. Pursuant to the recommendation of the VI Pay Commission, the scale of pay Rs.1200-2040 relating to both Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom) and Weaving Instructor Grade I (Handloom) were revised to 4000-6000. An Official Committee was constituted to go into the anomaly of certain categories. Based on the recommendations of the Official Committee, the scale of pay of Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom) was revised to Rs.5000-8000 and the scale of pay of Weaving Instructor Grade I (Handloom) was revised to Rs.4500-7000. 5. This revision recommended by the Official Committee was implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.554 Finance Department, dated 28.09.1998. 6. G.O.Ms.No.554 Finance Department, dated 28.09.1998 contains revision of scale of pay to 19 categories. Sl.No.2 and Sl.No.11 deals with the same post viz., Weaving Instructor Grade I. While the existing pay of Rs.4000-6000 to Weaving Instructor Grade I at Sl.No.2 was revised to 50008000, the existing pay of Rs.4000-6000 to Weaving Instructor Grade I at Sl.No.11 was revised to 4500-7000. In fact, at Sl.No.2, it should have been mentioned that the said revision relates to Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom); but a mistake has crept in and it is merely stated as Weaving Instructor Grade I. 7. Based on the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.554, the petitioner, who is the Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Handloom) was given the scale pay of Rs.5000-8000. He was also given arrears. But subsequently, it was noticed that he is not entitled to revision under G.O.Ms.No.554 at Rs.5000-8000, but he is entitled to Rs.4500-7000. Based on the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.554, the petitioner, who is the Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Handloom) was given the scale pay of Rs.5000-8000. He was also given arrears. But subsequently, it was noticed that he is not entitled to revision under G.O.Ms.No.554 at Rs.5000-8000, but he is entitled to Rs.4500-7000. Hence, an order dated 13.06.2002 was issued by the second respondent viz., Director of Social Defence, revising the scale of pay of the petitioner from 01.01.1996 at Rs.4500-7000 from Rs.5000-8000. Based on the aforesaid order dated 13.06.2002, a consequential order dated 01.08.2002 was passed for recovery of Rs.39,655/- by the Superintendent, Government Juvenile Home, Ranipet., the third respondent. The petitioner has filed this Original Application (W.P.No.5774 of 2007) challenging the aforesaid orders dated 13.06.2002 of the Director of Social Defence and 01.08.2002 of the Superintendent, Government Juvenile Home, Ranipet. 8. The respondents have filed a reply affidavit stating that the petitioner was granted higher scale pay at Rs.5000-8000 erroneously and hence, the same was corrected. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The petitioner was appointed on 22.11.1993 as Weaving Instructor, Grade-I at Government Juvenile Home, Ranipet, Vellore District in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040. The Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom) was treated as promoted post and was given higher scale of pay some time. It is stated in the proceedings dated 07.01.2002 of the Director of Social Defence that the post of Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom) was in existence only in the Government Juvenile Home at Chengalpattu and the same was disbanded from 31.05.1993. In this context, the proceedings dated 07.01.2002 is extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 11. The petitioner was appointed as Weaving Instructor Grade I (Handloom) at Government Juvenile Home at Ranipet. It is not his case that he was appointed as Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Powerloom) at Ranipet. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents, that there is no post of Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Powerloom) in any of the Juvenile Homes, except at Chengalpattu and that too was disbanded from 31.05.1993. 12. However, a mistake occurred while issuing G.O.Ms.No.554 as referred to above. In this context, it is relevant to extract the entire Government Order, which is as follows:- "READ:- 1. G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (PC) Department, dated 13.04.1998 2. 12. However, a mistake occurred while issuing G.O.Ms.No.554 as referred to above. In this context, it is relevant to extract the entire Government Order, which is as follows:- "READ:- 1. G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (PC) Department, dated 13.04.1998 2. G.O.Ms.No.170, Finance (PC) Department, dated 21.04.1998 The One Man Commission constituted in the Government Order second read above has recommended the revision of scales of pay of certain categories in the Social Defence Department. The Government has examined these recommendations and accepts the same. Accordingly, Government directs that the scales of pay of the following posts shall be revised as shown below:- Sl. No. Name of Post Existing Scale of Pay Rs. Revised Scale of Pay Rs. 1. Technical Assistant 5000-8000 5500-9000 2. Weaving Instructor, Grade-I 4000-6000 5000-8000 3. Tailoring Instructor, Grade-I 4000-6000 5000-8000 4. Binding Instructor, Grade-I 4000-6000 5000-8000 5. Instructor, Leather Stitching 4000-6000 5000-8000 6. Weaving Mistress/Weaving Instructress 4000-6000 4500-7000 7. Tailoring Instructress/Instructor 4000-6000 4500-7000 8. Metalwork Instructor 4000-6000 4500-7000 9. Blacksmith Instructor 4000-6000 4500-7000 10. Carpentry Instructor Grade-I 4000-6000 4500-7000 11. Weaving Instructor, Grade-I 4000-6000 4500-7000 12. Tailoring Instructor, Grade-II 3050-4590 4500-7000 13. Foremen, Grade-II (To be redesignated as Foreman) 4000-6000 5300-8300 14. Mat Weaving Instructor 3050-4590 4500-7000 15. Officer Manager (To be redesignated as Superintendent) 5300-8300 5500-9000 16. Embroidery Mistress 4000-6000 4500-7000 17. Sewing Mistress 4000-6000 4500-7000 18. Music Mistress 4000-6000 4500-7000 19. Home Science Assistant 4000-6000 4500-7000 2. The revision of scale of pay ordered in the paragraph I above shall take effect from 1.1.1996 notionally for the purpose of fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay and with monetary benefit from 1.9.1998. Relevant Fitment Table is enclosed. 3. The Selection Grade and Special Grade for these categories shall be regulated as per Schedule-II of the Government Order first read above subject to condition laid down in paragraph 4 of the above Government Order." 13. In fact, there is no need for the One Man Commission to recommend higher scale of pay for Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom) since the same was disbanded from 31.05.1993. However, the same was not brought to the notice and hence, higher scale of pay was fixed to Weaving Instructor (Powerloom) at Rs.5000-8000 as per the above said Government Order. However, the same does not reflect in G.O.Ms.No.554 since the word "Powerloom" was not mentioned at Sl.No.2. However, the same was not brought to the notice and hence, higher scale of pay was fixed to Weaving Instructor (Powerloom) at Rs.5000-8000 as per the above said Government Order. However, the same does not reflect in G.O.Ms.No.554 since the word "Powerloom" was not mentioned at Sl.No.2. Hence, Sl.No.2 as well as Sl.No.11 mentions the same post viz., Weaving Instructor Grade-I. 14. Based on the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.554, the petitioner was granted scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996. It was not due to his misrepresentation, but due to the confusion created by the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.554 as stated above. 15. In fact, the following table in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit gives the revision of scale of pay to Weaving Instructor Grade I (Powerloom), Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Handloom) and Weaving Instructor Grade-II from the Second Pay Commission onwards and the same is extracted hereunder:- Name of Category Scales of pay as recommended by the Paya Commission/One Man Committee/Official Committee/One Man Committee. (Rs.) Second Pay Commission Third Pay Commission Fourth Pay Commission Fifth Pay Commission Official Committee (1992) Official Committee (1998) One Man Commission (1998) Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Powerloom) 250-400 400-700 705-1230 1200-2040 - 4000-6000 5000-8000 Weaving Instructor Grade-I (Handloom) 200-300 325-550 610-1075 950-1500 1200-2040 4000-6000 4500-7000 Weaving Instructor Grade-II 140-210 265-425 555-970 825-1200 950-1500 3050-4590 - 16. When it was noticed that the petitioner was given higher scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.554, the same was sought to be cancelled by the impugned order, dated 13.06.2002 by the second respondent. In the mean time, excess amount of Rs.39,655/- was paid to him due to such erroneous fixation. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the excess payment paid to him. It is well settled that when excess payment was not due to any misrepresentation by the Government employee, normally, the same cannot be recovered causing prejudice to him. Further the recovery order dated 01.08.2002 of the third respondent was passed without hearing the petitioner. As far as re-fixation of pay is concerned, I do not find any infirmity with the same. But the petitioner cannot be directed to repay the excess amount paid to him pursuant to the erroneous fixation, particularly, when the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same and the entire blame is on the department in fixing such a higher pay. 17. But the petitioner cannot be directed to repay the excess amount paid to him pursuant to the erroneous fixation, particularly, when the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same and the entire blame is on the department in fixing such a higher pay. 17. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the consequential order of recovery of alleged excess pay viz., 01.08.2002 is quashed. However, the order dated 13.06.2002 refixing the pay of the petitioner is unaltered. The writ petition stands partly allowed. No costs.