JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the part of the order by which the Tribunal has set aside and quashed the action of the petitioners in so far as the recovery of excess payment has been ordered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India argued in vehemence stating that the respondents employees enjoyed erroneous fixation and higher pay knowing fully that they could not be granted higher pay. He would further submit that subsequently where litigation was brought to the record, interim orders were also passed, but the employees continued to get the payments. He would submit that this conduct on the part of the employees clearly shows that they guilty of misrepresentation, therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 will have no application and the recovery was justified. 4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is bereft of any material. Averments and the stand taken by the petitioners have been considered by the Tribunal in Para 7 of the order. The petitioners came out with the case that the pay fixation of the applicant was made erroneously which was occasioned by the fact that the Railway Board circular dated 17.08.1998, was not available with the petitioners at the time of making fixation and therefore, an erroneous fixation came to be made. Subsequently, when Railway Board circular dated 22.04.1999 clarified that those employees who were getting Special Pay of Rs. 70/- prior to 01.01.1996, their pay fixation in the 5th Central Pay Commission was to be effected in terms of Rule 7(1)(B) of the RSRP Rules, 1997, appropriate fixation of pay was done. 5. The Tribunal, has partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent's employee. While the Tribunal has held that the fixation of pay was erroneous and the action of the petitioners in so far as revision of pay fixation is concerned, has not been interfered with, the Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) to quash the action in so far as recovery is concerned. 6. There is hardly any material to show that the respondents-employee was guilty of misrepresentation. 6. There is hardly any material to show that the respondents-employee was guilty of misrepresentation. It was the case of the petitioners themselves before the Tribunal that pay fixation was as a result of erroneous interpretation and that subsequently a clarification was made by the Railway Board vide circular dated 22.04.1999. On the face of specific stand taken before the Tribunal, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error of jurisdiction in arriving at the conclusion that the present case is covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). The Tribunal's order to that extent does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or patent legality or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The view taken by the Tribunal with regard to recovery not suffering from any of the errors which should be corrected under supervisory jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the recovery part. 8. This petition is dismissed.