Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Petitioner was granted higher pay-scale as per letter dated 6th September, 2003. Petitioner was called upon vide Annexure A-1, dated 2nd August, 2004 to deposit a sum of Rs.23,468/-. Admittedly, petitioner has not been heard before issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 2nd August, 2004. Petitioner has neither mis-represented nor mis-led the authorities at the time of fixation of his pay as per letter dated 6th September, 2003.

2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 have culled out the following principles governing the circumstances in which the excess amount cannot be recovered by the employer:

“55. That apart, it also appears from the record produced before us that while the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar was in favour of making the amended provisions of FR. 22-C applicable to the appellants-teachers after having come to know that the said rule did not exist and had been substituted, the Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Bihar, wanted to apply the unamended provision to the appellants-teachers so as to make available the benefi