JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr Manu Sreekumar, learned and erudite Counsel for the petitioner, who has argued the case with his heart, with confidence and exuberance; and Mr K R Ganesh, learned Standing Counsel for the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. 2. The petitioner was appointed as the first Dean of the APJ vide Abdul Kalam Technological University on 03.02.2017 Ext.P1 order. When the petitioner was appointed as the first Dean of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, the University’s Statutes were not framed. The petitioner’s salary was paid as that of a Professor in the Government Aided College. The petitioner’s appointment was till he i.e attained the age of superannuation, 56 years, or the University’s Statutes came into force. On 10.08.2020, the University’s First Statute came into force, and the petitioner was relieved from the post of Dean of the University. 3. The petitioner was paid the admissible salary along with the increments for all these years when he worked as the Dean of the University. Now the University has issued a liability certificate in Exts.P14 and P15, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,84,392/- on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any increment after he attained the age of superannuation. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s appointment was for four years or till the University’s Statute came into force. The University’s Statute came into force on 10.08.2020. He further submits that it was for the authorities to make the payment as he was entitled to, and the petitioner did not coerce or play any fraud or misrepresent the authorities in making payment of salary and allowances to him. He further submits that the Liability Certificate has been issued after 22 months from the date when the petitioner was relieved from the post of Dean. Therefore, the Liability Certificate cannot be enforced against the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay of 22 months in issuing the liability certificate and on the ground that the petitioner cannot be punished for receiving the payment of increments when the petitioner has neither misrepresented nor played any fraud with the authorities to receive the payment. Therefore, the Liability Certificate cannot be enforced against the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay of 22 months in issuing the liability certificate and on the ground that the petitioner cannot be punished for receiving the payment of increments when the petitioner has neither misrepresented nor played any fraud with the authorities to receive the payment. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala , Judgment dated 02.05.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 7115/2010 in paragraph 9, which reads as follows: “(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.” 5. Mr K.R. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, however, submits that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the increments after he attained the age of superannuation. The increments paid to the petitioner were against the Government Order G.O.(R1) No.338/2021 HEDN dated 22.02.2021 [Ext.P9]. Therefore, the University has issued the Liability Certificate asking the petitioner to remit the amount of the increments on the salary granted to him after he attained the age of superannuation. There is no illegality in the Liability Certificate issued in Exts.P14 and P15. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no illegality in the Liability Certificate issued in Exts.P14 and P15. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 7. The petitioner’s initial appointment was for a period of four years or till the University’s Statutes came into force. The petitioner’s salary was fixed as that of the Professor of the Government Aided College. The petitioner was relieved from the post of Dean when the University’s First Statutes came into force on 10.08.2020. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner neither misrepresented nor played any fraud in getting the increments on his salary from the University. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would apply to the facts of the present case. 9. Mr K.R. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the respondent University’s submission that the petitioner was not entitled to the increments, in view of the Government Order, also does not appear to be correct. The Government Order cited by the learned Counsel for the University does not, anywhere, provide that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the increment. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned liability certificate in Exts.P14 and P15 is hereby quashed. There is no order as to costs.