K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point put-forward for our decision in this Original Petition is the permissibility of reduction of pay of a Government servant long after his retirement with effect from a date long before his superannuation.

2. The skeletal facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:

3. The petitioner was an Inspector (Works) Grade I in the Railways under the second respondent. By way of punishment for misconduct, he was compulsorily retired from service on 26.11.1990. The said punishment has become final. While so, on 24.9.1993 almost after three years of his retirement from service, his pay was reduced with effect from 1.11.1986 without notice or hearing to the applicant. Consequently, his pension was refixed and the alleged excess payment was 'recovered' from the amounts due to him. The aggrieved petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing O.A. No. 1021/97 praying, 'inter alia, for a declaration that the "revision/reduction of the applicant's pay after retirement is illegal and direct the respondents to regulate his salary accordingly." It was the 8th relief sought in the O.A. There Were other prayers also. The Tribunal has granted the said relief as sought for by the applicant in the following words:

after retirement as illegal being opposed to the principles of natural justice."

Certain other reliefs also were granted. The dissatisfied petitioner filed this Original Petition seeking various reliefs. At the time of final hearing of this Original Petition, the petitioner confined his arguments to reliefs:

1. to refund the amount recovered from his terminal benefits towards alleged excess payments made to him while in service.

2 'to compute his pensionary' benefits on the basis of the unreduced pay.

From Ext. P8 reply statement filed in O.A. No. 290/95, it is evident that an amount of Rs. 20,930/-, has been recovered from the, leave salary and gratuity. The amount recovered from the leave salary was Rs. 17,475/- and from the DCRG Rs. 3,455/-. Even though the Tribunal declared that the 'revision of pay after retirement with retrospective effect is invalid, it did not grant consequential relief to refund the entire amount recovered and also payment of terminal benefits taking into account his prerevised pay.. The petitioner pressed only these two matters in this Original Petition.

4. Counsel for the respondents at first attempted to contend that no amount has been recovered from the terminal benefits, but when confronted with the pleadings of the respondents in Ext. P8 at paras. 5 and 6, he did not further pursue the connection. Alternatively, it was contended that even if the recovery of arrears is set aside, the respondents should be permitted to implement the revision of pay notionally so that they can reduce his monthly pension accordingly. The Rules enabling such revision, if any mistake has occurred in the fixation of pay;' were also pressed into service.

5., This court as well as the Supreme Court has been consistently dissuading recovery of excess pay pursuant to discovery of error in the pay fixation. This is subject to the qualification that pay was fixed by the competent officer with out any misrepresentation from the employee. The decisions of the Supreme Court are in ShyamBabu Vanna v. Union of India (1994'(2) SCC 521) and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995 (Supp.) I SCC 1,8). The decisions of this court start from Aliyamma v. Deputy Director(1982 KLT SN 45) and end with Sathyapalan v. Deputy Director (1998 (I) KLT 399). There are'several unreported decisions also on this point.

6. In this context, the counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no bar against correcting the mistake and implementing the same prospectively. There may be power to correct mistake and regulate the pension prospectively in accordance therewith. But the exercise of power after several years of retirement of a Government servant cannot stand sc