Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant/Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd. and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The State in its Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Limited, a Government of Bihar undertaking has come in appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 4528 of 2020, whereby the decision of the Corporation as recommended by the Finance Department, for recovering the excess amount from the respondents herein was turned down and the Corporation was asked to pay the entire post-retiral dues of the respondents who retired in 2017 and 2019 respectively.

3. While saying so, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment delivered in case of State of Panjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others 2015 (4) SCC 334 holding that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the respondents and therefore if there was any excess payment, the respondents were not responsible for the same and such issue having been taken up by the Corporation after their retirement is nothing but trying to flog a dead horse.

4. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/Corporation has submitted that the respondents were deputed to Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called as ‘BSMFCL’) in the year 1999 and they joined the post of Accounts Officer and Deputy Secretary which post was re-designated as Administrative Officer respectively. By a decision of the Board of Governors, they were absorbed permanently in the Corporation with effect from 31.12.1999. About a month before the absorption of the respondents, there was a decision of the Board of Directors for re-fixation of the salary of the employees of the Corporation but the salary was revised on 28.02.2000, giving the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- to Rs. 8000-13,500/- to the respondents.

5. Mr. Anjani Kumar has submitted that at this stage only, anomaly creeped in which got perpetuated till the respondents retired resulting in their being paid excess amount than their entitlements.

6. The grounds urged in support of the aforesaid contention is that for pay fixation, the last pay drawn by an employee in the parent department is to be considered. He further submits that the respondents were in the payscale of Rs. 2000-3500/- which ought not to have been altered for the reason that they were deputationists, who later came to be absorbed in the services of Minorities Corporation.

7. Apart from this, it has been urged that there was a mistake in giving parity to the services of the respondents with the officers of the Finance Department who were obviously being paid higher salary for the reason of their work-profile, giving no reason to any authority to treat the respondents at par with such officers of the Finance Department.

8. Except for the Finance Department, there is no other department which has Accounts Officer in their cadre and the appellation of the post of the respondents, though, was Accounts Officer and Administrative Officer but in fact the nature of work was not akin to the work discharged by the Accounts Officers of the Finance Department. It was pointed out that the pay-scale of the respondents ought to have been taken as Rs. 2000-3500/- over which the 5th Pay Revision Committee recommendation would have applied and the respondents should have been placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-.

9. Because of this anomaly, by giving parity of pay to the respondents, their pay was upgraded in 1999 only to the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- and therefore, after the 5th Pay Revision Committee the scale which was given to the respondents was Rs. 8000-13,500/- which was not their entitlement.

10. It has further been urged very vehemently by Mr. Kumar that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (supra) will not come to t