5.This Court is of the opinion that the authorities competent are empowered to correct the errors in respect of revision of pay. No doubt, the Audit objections are to be implemented in accordance with the Board proceedings in force. In the present case, the revision of pay and recovery was imposed based on the audit objection. However, no notice or opportunity was given to the writ petitioner. This Court is of the view that the correction of errors in the revision of pay is certainly permissible and the authority competent is empowered to correct the scale of pay in accordance with the Rules in force. However, the amount already paid shall not be recovered in view of the fact that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employee nor it was granted at the instance of the employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that at present the writ petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, which falls under Group-II category and at the time of recovery, he was in Class III post. Therefore, the recovery of excess amount cannot be effected. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334 and held that in respect of Group-II employees, the correction of errors in respect of revision is permissible. However, recovery in respect of Group-III and IV employees are impermissible and in paragraph No.18 of the judgment is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:-
