Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):—

“1. That this writ application is being filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 issued by the Principal, Nalanda Medical College, Patna vide Memo No.- 3648 Patna dated 21.11.2022 or any other related order/letters whereby 2nd A.C.P. (M.A.C.P.) granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and further ordered that yearly increment given to him has also been cancelled from 01.07.2011. Further ordered to recover the excess amount of salary which has been paid to the petitioner from 01.07.10 to 31.03.17 and also from 01.04.17 to till date. The said order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing which is against the Principle of natural justice. The same has been issued in arbitrary manner and without following due process of law.”

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there was no mis-representation on the part of the petitioner, leading to grant of the benefits of 2nd M.A.C.P. to him, no recovery, as sought to be made by the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, issued by the Principal, Nalanda Medical College, Patna, can be made from the petitioner.

3. Per contra, though the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that in the meeting of the Screening Committee, held on 30.07.2022, it was found that the petitioner has been granted the benefits of 2nd M.A.C.P. without passing the Computer Eligibility Examination, hence the Committee had recommended for cancellation of the benefits of 2nd M.A.C.P., granted to the petitioner, with effect from 01.02.2012, however, it has not been denied that there has been no mis-representation on the part of the petitioner, leading to grant of the benefits of 2nd M.A.C.P. to the petitioner, hence, admittedly, no recovery can be made.

4. This Court finds that the law regarding recovery is no longer res integra and has been well settled in a catena of decisions reported in (2009)3 SCC (Syed Qadir vs. State of Bihar); (1995) Suppl.1 SCC 80 (Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana); (1994) 2 SCC 52 (Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India) ; (1997) 6 SCC 139 (B.Ganga Ram vs. Regional Joint Director) ; (2006) 11 SCC 492 (Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar) ; (2000) 10 SCC 99 (Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bhadur); (2006) 11 SCC 7089 (B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India University) and (1995) suppl. 1 SCC 18 (Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana) and the one reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 (State of Punjab vs. Rafique Masih).

5. At this juncture, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer to yet another judgment rendered to by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2022) SCC Online SCC 536, paragraphs no.9, 11 and 14 to 16 whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow:—

“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.

11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.)