Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The learned counsel for the respondent - Gyan 45 wp1893-2014+group Mata Vidya Vihar submits that no final decision has yet been taken for recovery of the excess money from the petitioners that has been paid to them because of wrong pay fixation.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited the judgments in the cases of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Babulal Rama Thakre V. Work Load Committee, Zilla Parishad and others 2016 (2) ALL MR 750 and submit that the amount alleged to have been paid to the petitioners in excess due to mistake on the part of the respondent - Gyan Mata Vidya Vihar, without there being any fraud played or misrepresentation made by the petitioners, cannot be allowed to be recovered from them. In our view, the above-cited cases are fully applicable to the facts of the present cases also. The amount of excess payment alleged to have been paid due to wrong pay fixation by the respondent - Gyan Mata Vidya Vihar to the petitioners, who are class III employees serving with the said Institution, cannot be allowed to be recovered. However, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent - Gyan Mata Vidya Vihar 46 wp1893-2014+group shall be directed to continue to pay the same pay scale to them in future also, cannot be accepted since the said pay scale is not supported by Schedule 'C' of the Rules of 1981.

(vi) The respondents are restrained from making recovery of any amount from the petitioners towards excess payment made to them on account of wrong pay fixation.

(vii) The Writ Petitions are allowed in the above terms and Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(viii) The parties shall bear their own costs. 

                  Sd/-                                   Sd/-
        [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]                      [T.V. NALAWADE]
               JUDGE                                    JUDGE





                                       48                 wp1893-2014+group