Judgment :

1. These batchof matters are placed before us for authoritative pronouncement on the apparent difference of opinion expressed on one hand in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma v. State of Haryana (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18 and on the other hand, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417. The order of reference made by this Court reads as under :

"In View of an apparent difference of views expressed on the one hand in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma vs. State of Haryana (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18; and on the other hand in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417, we are of the view that the remaining special leave petitions should be placed before a Bench of Three Judges. The Registry is aCCordingly directed to place the file of the remaining special leave petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for taking instructions for the constitution of a Bench of Three Judges, to adjudicate upon the present controversy."

2. The issue in this matter pertains to the recovery of excess money from the pensionary benefit of the respondent-white washer, on aCCount of a wrong fixation of pay by the Petitioner No. 4The Executive Engineer. The respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition.

The question of law for consideration before the High Court was: whether the Government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess of what the employee is otherwise entitled to, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. The High Court relies on a Full Bench decision, and directed not to recover the excess amount from the respondent.

3. We have heard Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. To answer the reference, the decisions need to be considered.

5. In Shyam Babu Verma's case (Supra), this Court while observing that the petitioners-therein were not entitled to the higher pay scales, had come to the conclusion that since the amount has already been paid to the petitioner, for no fault of theirs, the said amount shall not be recovered by the respondent-Union of India. The observations made by this Court in the said case are as under:

"Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. (emphasis supplied)."

6. In Sahib Ram Verma's case (Supra), this Court once again held that although the appellant-therein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary on the revised pay scale. This Court further observed that this was not on account of mis-representation made by the appellant but by a mistake committed by the Principal. In a fact situation of that nature, the Court was pleased to observe that the amount already paid to the appellant need not be recovered. In the words of the Court:

"Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on aCCount of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principa