JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Smt. Th. Sobhana, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri H. Ishwarlal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06-03-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 169 of 2007 by which the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition. 3. The case of the respondent/petitioner is that her husband, S. Ibomcha Singh, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service as Head Clerk on 29-02-2004 vide order dated 24-2-2004 issued by the then Chief Conservator of Forest after having utilised the service of her husband upto 29-02-2004. A corrigendum dated 24-09-2004 came to be issued by the then Chief Conservator of Forest changing the date of retirement of her husband as 31-12-2003 in place of 29-02-2004. Her husband died on 28-01-2006 without receiving all his retirement benefits and after his death, retirement benefits such as GPF, GIS, leave encashment, DCRG etc. were given to her after deducting an amount of Rs. 1,00,368/- out of total gratuity amount of Rs. 1,75,824/- and another amount of Rs. 23,254/- out of the cash equivalent to unutilized earned leave vide letter dated 25-04-2006 and a treasury chalan dated 14-06-2005 respectively. The deductions being unreasonable and illegal, the respondent/petitioner submitted representations to the appellant/respondents No. 4 & 5 for the refund of the said amount but they have failed to consider the same. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/respondents No. 1 to 4, the deduction as alleged by the respondent/petitioner to be unreasonable and illegal, is not denied. All that the appellant/respondents No. 1 to 4 stated, was that the said amount of Rs. 1,00,368/- that was deducted by way of recovery was the excess payment of pay and allowances made to the respondent's husband for the period from 01-01-1996 to 31-12-2003 due to wrong fixation of pay. The other amount of Rs. 23,254/- was voluntarily refunded by her husband towards overpayment of pay & allowances for the month of January & February, 2004. 5. After having accepted the submission of the counsel for the respondent/petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma & ors. Vs. The other amount of Rs. 23,254/- was voluntarily refunded by her husband towards overpayment of pay & allowances for the month of January & February, 2004. 5. After having accepted the submission of the counsel for the respondent/petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma & ors. Vs. Union of India reported in MANU/SC/0654/1994 : (1994) 2 SCC 521 that no excess amount given to the employee for no fault on the part of the employee could be recovered from him, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the direction that the sum of Rs. 1,00,368/- + Rs. 23,254/- = Rs. 1,23,622/- be refunded to the respondent/petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. While narrating the facts of the case and also recording the submission made by the counsel for the respondent/petitioner, the learned Judge observed that the said amount of Rs. 1,00,368/- was the amount paid to the respondent's husband as pay and allowance for the service rendered by him during the period from 31-12-2003 to 29-02-2004. In the present writ appeal, the appellants/respondents have taken the ground that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider that the amount of Rs. 1,00,368/- that was recovered was the excess amount paid to the respondent's husband for the period from 01-01-1996 to 31-12-2003 due to wrong fixation of pay and not for the service rendered by him during the period from 31-12-2003 to 29-02-2004. Be that as it may, it will make no difference whatever the nature of the amount may be and this court need not go into that controversy because the question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the recovery of excess amount, given to the respondent's husband for no fault of his, is permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma & ors. Vs. Union of India reported in : (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Syed Abdul Qadir & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in : (2009) 3 SCC 475 . Vs. Union of India reported in : (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Syed Abdul Qadir & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in : (2009) 3 SCC 475 . In Shyam Babu Verma's case wherein the petitioners therein were wrongly given the pay scale of Rs. 330/- - 560/- since 1973 due to no fault of theirs which was reduced in the year 1984 w.e.f. January 1, 1973, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be only just and proper not to recover any excess amount which had already paid to them and that no steps be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to them. Similarly, in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bonafide mistake on their part. The excess amount made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants can not be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants teachers submitted that the majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants teachers submitted that the majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made." In the instant writ appeal also, the excess amounts have been paid to the respondent's husband without his fault and the stand taken by the appellants/respondents in the affidavit is that the overpayment of pay and allowances for the period from 01-01-1996 to 31-12-2003 was due to wrong fixation of pay in the revision of pay 1999 which according to us can not be attributed to the respondent's husband and moreover, as is evident from the preceding paras, the respondent's husband has already retired. There is no reason why the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases be not applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the writ appeal be not decided accordingly. Therefore, the issue involved herein can be decided as covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that the present writ appeal is devoid of any merit. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.