ORDER (Per P. Swaroop Reddy, J.) In all these writ petitions, as common questions of facts and law, arise for consideration, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to, as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 2. W.P. No. 18478 of 2004 is filed against the judgment in O.A. No. 1329 of 2002, which was disposed of by a common order dated 29.4.2004 along with O.A. Nos. 502 of 2004; 1 048 of 2002 and 328, 1515 and 263 of 2003; 424 of 2004 and 263 of 2003. W.P.No.24605 of 2004 is filed against the order in O.A.No.502 of 2004 and W.P. No. 24602 of 2004 is filed against the order in OANo.1515 of 2003; W.P. No. 48 of 2005 is filed against the order in O.A.No.1048 of 2002. 3. Similarly, the W.P. No. 22666 of 2005 is filed against the order in O.A.No.781 of 2002, which was disposed of by a common order along O.As.No.778 and 782 of 2002 on 22.7.2005. It is here again clarified that W.P. No. 22666 of 2005 is filed only against the order in O.A. No. 781 of 2002 and no other Writ petitions are filed challenging the order in other OAS. 4. The main issue involved in all these cases is: in pursuance of the recommendations made by Justice Talwar Committee on Extra Departmental Agents (EDAs), the Director General of Posts issued Official Memorandum dated 17-12-1998; clarificatory circular dated 23.7.1999 and Official Memorandum dated 10.8.1999, in pursuance of which the authorities fixed the pay scales of EDAs appointed prior to 151 November 1987, as per the workload on foot-beat basis with effect from 1.3.1998 and arrears were paid to them accordingly in all the divisions of A.P. Circle. Later, the Director General of Posts issued leter NO.6/11-9-2002 following the decision dated 22.7.2002 made in O.A.No.1011/ of 2002 of Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing to regulate the remuneration/time related to Continuity allowance (TRCA) of EDAs on the basis of the actual work load as per the cycle-beat to maintain uniformity, except to those in hilly areas, where beats are not cyclable. Thus, in view of the decision of Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated: 22.7.2002 some confusion arose with regard to the payment of allowances, TRCAS payable to EDAS on the basis of cycle-beat etc and certain instructions were issued in this regard. However, the Director General of Posts, vide letter dated 22.3.1996 and 13.3.1997 reiterated that the allowances of EDAs should not be reduced under any circumstances. Accordingly, the Post Masters General of Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada range issued specific instructions stating that TRCA of EDAs, who entered into service earlier to 31.10.1987 should be protected and computed on the basis of their workload computed on foot-beat basis, vide their letters dated 18.9.2000 and 5/8-10.1999. These instructions were issued based on the clarifications received from the Director General of Posts. 5. It is submitted by the applicants that EDAs were given pay scales after repeated struggles and strikes, in consultation with the Unions and Federations representing the interest of EDAs, as seen in Director General of Posts, letter NO.17/190/2000-ED & Training dated 3.8.2000. The earlier clarification issued by the Director General of Posts shall prevail and the same cannot be reduced by taking advantage of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1011 of 2001. The assurance given by the Director General of Posts, that the work-load on EDAs who entered the service prior to 31.10.1987 and computed on foot-beat and the package deal entered into by the department with the Unions should be honoured and the department shall be precluded from reopening the issue and reducing the TRCA already fixed on the basis of foot-beat and resorting to recovery of alleged over payments. It is also the case of the applicants that it is well settled, that excess payments made due to wrong construction of the relevant order by them are not recoverable from the employees, when there is no mis-representation by the employees. The amounts already paid shall not be recovered, Director General of Posts did not direct recovery of the alleged excess payments. Reduction of pay scales and the order of recovery is against the principles of natural justice. Now the applicants are on the verge of superannuation, as such they would be badly effected. 6. The amounts already paid shall not be recovered, Director General of Posts did not direct recovery of the alleged excess payments. Reduction of pay scales and the order of recovery is against the principles of natural justice. Now the applicants are on the verge of superannuation, as such they would be badly effected. 6. The applicants ultimately sought relief not to implement the order NO.14-16/2001 - PAP dated: 6/11.9.2002 and the order NO.A2/ TRCAlDlgs dated 20.9.1992 and NO.LC/Misc/2002 dated NIL-9-2002, which resulted in reduction of pay of the EDAs with retrospective effect from 1.3.1998 and consequential recovery of the alleged excess payment. They also sought a direction to the respondents to continue to pay them TRCA already fixed depending on their workload, based on foot-beat, as per Director General of Posts Lr.S.No.14-8/90 PAP dated 23.7.1999. 7. To the above pleadings of the applicants, appropriate reply was filed b the Department in the O.As. 8. Considering the material on record the tribunal held that it is in agreement with the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1011 of 2001 dated 22.7.2002. It further held that the protection given by the Government to the employees related on to the quantum of basic allowance which they were getting prior to 1.11.1987 and not to the TRCA scale. The assurance given by the Government to the employees who joined before 1.11.1987 cannot be withdrawn and the same be continued in respect of till basic allowance drawn by them, as per the foot-beat formula and there shall not be any distinction between the employees appointed before 1.11.1987 and that joined after 1.11.1987. 9. The learned Tribunal further held with regard to the recovery of excess payment made to the applicants by the Governments, though the Respondents have given assurance that no such order of recovery has been made so far and as such the recoveries could not be made and in view of the settled law, excess payment made due to wrong construction of relevant order by the government, is not recoverable from the employees, when there is no representation by the employees concerned. It is pertinent to note that the employees have not challenged any portion of the above order; but the department has challenged the same contending that Grameena Oak Sevaks (GOS) previously known as Extra Departmental Agents (EOAs) render part time work not exceeding five hours a day; they were paid allowance for the work rendered by them according to their workload, which is measured. From 1.3.1998 TRCA has been introduced, which brought the concept of enhancing the allowance of the GOS, not merely on the basis of the workload; but also based on the years of service rendered. The workload of GOSs is calculated on two formulae - Foot beat and Cycle beat. The time factor applicable for covering one kilo meter on foot beat is 12 minutes; whereas it is six minutes on cycle beat. Thus the work load assessed on foot beat formulae is almost double to that assessed on cycle beat formula. Cycle beat formula is applied by paying Rs.20.00 per month as cycle allowance to all GOS, who were appointed after 1.11.1987 and also for GOSs, were appointed prior to 1.11.1987 and who are adversely affected on account of conversion of foot-beat into cycle beat. But the GOSs appointed prior to 1.11.1987 who were adversely affected on account of conversion of foot beat into cycle beat would continue to have allowance protected by assessing the workload only on foot beat basis and the cycle allowance at RS.20.00 per month shall not be paid to them. 10. The concept of TRCA has been introduced with effect from 1.3.1998 and the cycle beat formala has been applied to all GDSs, including those who are appointed prior to 1.11.1987 and who are adversely affected after conversion of foot beat into cycle beat. The protection extended to those who were appointed till 1.11.1987 would cease when new appointments were made. The protection allowance based on workload assessed on foot beat was extended only for the limited purpose of ensuring that no existing GDS is adversely effected. The protection extended to those who were appointed till 1.11.1987 would cease when new appointments were made. The protection allowance based on workload assessed on foot beat was extended only for the limited purpose of ensuring that no existing GDS is adversely effected. It was decided that the calculation of level of allowance of GDSs would be done by multiplying the basic monthly allowance drawn by the GDS at that point of time by a factor of 3.25 to ensure that the level of protection of allowances enjoyed by the GDS at that point of time was continued while fixing their allowance under RTCA with effect from 1.3.1998 on cycle-beat formula. Where there are two prescribed slabs in TRCA. The first slab of TRCA for GDS was for work load of three hours, while the second slab was for any work load beyond it, upto a maximum of five years. In the case of other GDS, the cut-off point was three hours and forty five minutes. 11. In these writ petitions, the main grievance of the respondents-department is that the order of the learned Tribunal restricting the recovery of excess amounts paid is incorrect; the Tribunal erred to note that the TRCA to be made with effect from 1.3.1998 is in accordance with the provisions contained in Director General of Posts letter NO.14-8-99-P AP dated 5.3.1999; the tribunal erred in partially allowing the OAS. 12. Now the point that arises for consideration whether there are any grounds for allowing the writ petitions. 13. It has to be noticed that in the impugned order - the order passed in O.A. 1329 of 2002 and batch, at pargraph-23, the tribunal held asunder: "We are in agreement with the decision given by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1011/2001 dated 22-7 -2002 and hold that the protection given by the Government to the employees related only to the quantum of basic allowance which they ere getting prior to 1.11.1987 and not to the TRCA scale. The assurance given by the Government to the employees who joined before 1.11.1987 cannot, therefore, be withdrawn and the same be continued in respect of the basic allowance drawn by them, as per footbeat formula. The assurance given by the Government to the employees who joined before 1.11.1987 cannot, therefore, be withdrawn and the same be continued in respect of the basic allowance drawn by them, as per footbeat formula. We, however, do not agree with the contentions of the applicants that this would make a discrimination between the employees appointed before 1.11.1987 and hose who joined from 1.11.1997 onwards, as in the earlier case there will be protection to the quantum of basic allowance drawn by them; whereas in the latter, case the allowance shall be determined on the basis of workload as per cycle beat formula, which is bound to be lesser than the earlier work. The Government had created the two categories of employees for persons who joined before 1.11.1987 and after 1.11.1987 on the basis of Justice Talwar Committee on Postal Extra Departmental system, which report was submitted in the year 1997. Under the Rules of business, the Government is empowered to create as many categories as they want and Court cannot interfere in the same. The court can interfere only when there is discrimination among the people in the same category, Equals are to be treated equally and if there is any discrimination among the people who joined before 1.11.1987, then that would amount to discrimination and the same can be challenged before any court of law. Similarly, employees who have joined after 1.11.1987 are to be treated alike and no discrimination should be made amongst them on any account. Right to equality has been ensured to all persons under the Constitution of India and, therefore, there should not be any discrimination in applying the formula for the same class of people." It is further directed that no recovery shall be effected when there is no misrepresentation by the employees. In all the OAS, similar was the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the grievance of the writ petitioners-the Department. 14. Now, the main grievance of the department appears is of restricting recovery of the excess amounts paid, which, in fact, were wrongly paid and even if there was no misrepresentation by the concerned, the excess paid is liable to be recovered. 15. 14. Now, the main grievance of the department appears is of restricting recovery of the excess amounts paid, which, in fact, were wrongly paid and even if there was no misrepresentation by the concerned, the excess paid is liable to be recovered. 15. With regard to fixing of TRCA based pay scale, there is no serious controversy and it is made clear that the reliefs that could be granted to the applicants in the OA shall be only with regard to the recoveries to be made and not in any other respect with regard to the quantum of allowance based on any kind of beat etc. 16. Coming to the question of liability of recovery, it was held by the learned Tribunal, as there is no misrepresentation made by the applicants, there could not be any recoveries, particularly considering the fact that the applicants are very low paid, almost contingent workmen. 17. In all the above circumstances, we' are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents with regard to the order of restriction of recoveries. The authorities referred to by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India re not of any application to the facts of the present cases, where, as already referred, the applicants are very low paid contingent type of employees and it cannot be said that there is any unjust enrichment, as referred to in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandai Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs 2005 (3) SCJ 151 = 2005 (3) SCC 738 relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 18. In the result all the writ petitions are disposed of clarifying that the applicants in all the OAS shall be entitled for the relief of non-recovery of the amount allegedly paid in excess and to no other relief. It is further clarified that the relief is granted to only the applicants in all the cases. In W.P.No. 18478 of 2004 it shall be applicable to the persons whose names are mentioned in the Annexure (Respondent Nos. 2 to 52). It is further clarified that the relief is granted to only the applicants in all the cases. In W.P.No. 18478 of 2004 it shall be applicable to the persons whose names are mentioned in the Annexure (Respondent Nos. 2 to 52). In case of others, who are not parties to the proceedings and want to claim reliefs on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Associations, it would be difficult to implement the orders, as there would be confusion, as attempts would be made to include new names in the lists of the members of the associations, for the purpose of claiming benefits. As such the aforementioned benefit shall not be extended to the members of the Associations in any of the matters (except W.P.No.18478 of 2004, where it shall be extended as referred to above). No costs.