ORDER : This writ petition is filed calling in question the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the CAT’) in O.A.No.170/01289/2015 dated 19.03.2018 under which the said O.A. was allowed and all the benefits as ascribed in the order are allowed to be payable to the applicant, on the cost of Rs.5,000/. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and as well as the counsel for the respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was appointed in the Postal Department as Delivery Agent/Mail Carrier (termed as GDS Mail Carrier) in Jakanur BO account with Badami SO in Bagalkote Division with effect from 02.03.1980. 4. On 12.01.2004, a person by name S.G.Angadi the GDS BPM of Jakanur Branch Office passed away. The additional workload of the said person was entrusted to the respondent. After calculating and examining the workload which was entrusted to the respondent in the light of the guidelines issued by the Postal Directorate an additional amount was paid as allowance a sum of Rs.4,895/-per month drawn in the slab of Rs.4,220-50-4,245 applicable to GDS MD/MC was fixed in the applicable 1st slab of BPM i.e. Rs.2,745-50-4,245. This has been continued even as on the date. Subsequently the petitioner found that the calculation was wrong and excess amount was paid to the respondent and therefore direct the respondents to pay back the excess amount and revised the said amount from 01.01.2006 with annual increase from 2010. There were proposal for recovery of the excess amount to the tune of Rs.20,177/-to the respondent. Therefore, the notice appears to have been issued for the recovery of the said amount. The said order was challenged before the CAT and ultimately vide impugned order, the CAT has come to the conclusion that the excess amount was paid due to the mistake of the petitioner herein and there was absolutely no mistake on the part of the respondent. It is virtually the work done compensation that has been given to the respondent by miscalculation. However the work extracted from the respondent has not been denied by the petitioner. The CAT has also observed that a person cannot deliver mail without travelling nearly 22 kilo-meters without at least having spent three hours time apart from his normal duty in his original cadre. However the work extracted from the respondent has not been denied by the petitioner. The CAT has also observed that a person cannot deliver mail without travelling nearly 22 kilo-meters without at least having spent three hours time apart from his normal duty in his original cadre. Therefore the CAT has come to the conclusion that the amount paid to the respondent in any manner cannot be recovered and on the other hand it also stated that he is entitled for the amount which is fixed earlier by the petitioner which in our opinion may not be correct. A miscalculation which led to payment of some amount will not in any manner enure to the benefit of the respondent for continuation of the same if the same has been erroneously paid against the recognized Rule. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni contend that, his client would be satisfied if the amount which has been already paid in excess if it is not recovered and his original cadre scale pay is restored to him i.e. the original pay scale which is attached to Grameena Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has also absolutely no objection as far as the continuation of the original pay scale attached to the cadre Grameena Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer. However, he refused the said claim of the respondent as far as the recovery of the amount excess paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, there is some unnecessary unwarranted observation has been made by the CAT that the counsel has misrepresented a false case before the High Court while the High Court passing the order. Further he contends that, the CAT ought not to have allowed the petition on cost of Rs.5,000/-as the writ court after considering the submission made by the learned counsels, remitted the matter to the CAT for passing appropriate fresh orders. Therefore, there is no lapse or lacuna or deliberate action on the part of the petitioner herein, in order to impose such costs. 6. Therefore, there is no lapse or lacuna or deliberate action on the part of the petitioner herein, in order to impose such costs. 6. In the wake of the above said submissions and careful examination of the materials on record, it is true that an amount of Rs.20,000/-and odd has been paid in excess as per the earlier calculations made by the petitioner that has been corrected by them and thereafter they issued notice for recovery of the said amount. However, the fact remains that, during that particular period as the observation made by the CAT, the work has been extracted from the respondent who has done additional work apart from the work entrusted to him attached to his cadre and travelling for a distance of 22 kilo meters spending lot of time for the same. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances, it is only the mistake of the employer in making the calculation and paying the amount to the respondent. There is absolutely no deliberate action shown on the part of the respondent so as to recover the excess amount paid which has virtually calculated as compensation to the work done by the respondent. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that an amount of Rs.12,000/-has already been recovered, but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the recovery itself has not been started and no amount has been recovered. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is some amount in excess paid to the respondent. We are of the opinion that, if any amount is already recovered or if no amount is recovered as on today, we direct the petitioner not to recover any amount further. Further added to that, we also clarify here that the salary which is attached to the cadre of the respondent i.e. Grameena Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier should not be reduced, the said cadre should be continued so far as the respondent is concerned and if any additional work is entrusted to him according to the fresh calculation made by the petitioner, the said amount has to be paid to the respondent in future if that additional charge is continued as long as the said charge continues. We also make an observation that when this Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and remitted the matter to the CAT, this Court never found that there was any falsehood or wrong thing submitted by the learned counsel. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the observation made by the CAT that the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a false representation before this Court while passing the earlier order remanding the matter to the CAT, the said observation is unwarranted. However, under the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the cost imposed on the respondent cannot be waived because of the miscalculation made by the petitioner and issuing of notice for recovering the amount it made the respondent to approach the Courts. Therefore, we feel it just and necessary that the order passed by the CAT to that extent is proper and correct. With the above said modifications and directions, the writ petition is disposed off. In view of the disposal of the main matter itself, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.