SUBHASH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application.

(2.) SINCE counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties this Court proceeds to hear this matter and dispose of finally under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not show that in law they were rightly paid by the respondents and they were entitled for payment of salary in regular pay scale with all other benefits as applicable to regularly appointed collection amins. How ever, it is contended that the salary and other benefits paid to the petitioners at par with regularly collection amins is not on account of any fraud or misrepresen tation played on the part of the petitioners, but if there is any error or mistake committed by the respondents, they may rectify the same but in any case can not recover the alleged excess amount already paid to the petitioners since the same has already been consumed in catering to the need of themselves and their family members. Moreover, in view of the law laid down in B. N. Singh v. State of U. P. and another, 1979 ALJ 1184; Shyam Babu Verma and another M. Union of India and others, 1994 (2) SCC 521; Gabriel Saver Fernandas and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 14. 9; Mahmood Hasan v. State of U. P. , JT1997 (1) SC 353; State of Karnataka and another. V. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees' Association and others, 2002 (3) SCC 302; Surya Deo Mishra v. State of U. P. , 2006 (1) ADJ 467: 2006 (1) ESC 379 (FB); Purushottam Lal Das and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2006 (10) SCALE 89, such amount cannot be recovered.