Order 1. The petitioners filed O.A.Nos.5484 and 5485 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.7025 and 7026 of 2007. 2. The petitioners were temporarily appointed as Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies, under Rule 10(a)(1) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Apart from the petitioners, many others were also appointed as Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies on temporary basis. 3. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.271, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 10.11.1988 for conducting a Special Qualifying Examination for regularisation of the service of the temporary Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies. Accordingly, the Special Qualifying Examination was conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioners and other similarly situated persons appeared in the said qualifying examination and they were successful. 4. Based on the same, the services of Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies were regularised with effect from 16.10.1989. At the time of regularisation, the increments already earned by the petitioners in temporary service were included and by taking into account their last drawn pay, their pay was fixed appropriately. 5. But subsequently, the Government issued a letter dated 04.12.1998 stating that the pay of the petitioners should be fixed only at the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the post and the fixation of pay taking into account the earlier increments drawn in temporary service cannot be done. 6. Based on the aforesaid Government letter dated 04.12.1998, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, vide letter dated 14.12.1998 instructed all the Joint Registrars of Cooperative Societies, to fix the pay of the petitioners at the minimum of the time scale of pay and to recover the excess payment from the concerned individuals. 7. Based on the order of the Government as well as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the impugned orders were passed by the second respondent, refixing the pay at the minimum time scale of pay and for recovery of the amount already paid. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed these original applications. 8. In the representation made by the petitioners to the respondents, it was specifically stated by them that for the similarly placed persons in Cooperative Audit Department, who were regularised based on the very same Special Qualifying Examination, scale of pay was fixed based on their last drawn pay vide G.O.Ms.No.624 Finance (Cooperation) Department, dated 29.10.1989. 9. 8. In the representation made by the petitioners to the respondents, it was specifically stated by them that for the similarly placed persons in Cooperative Audit Department, who were regularised based on the very same Special Qualifying Examination, scale of pay was fixed based on their last drawn pay vide G.O.Ms.No.624 Finance (Cooperation) Department, dated 29.10.1989. 9. It is relevant to extract the following passages from the representation of the petitioner:- (“Tamil”) 10. According to the petitioners, while the last drawn pay in temporary service was taken into account for fixation of pay for regularisation in the case of Cooperative Audit department, the same was not extended to the petitioners, who were working as Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies. 11. Further, a specific ground was raised in Ground 'F' of the Original Application that Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.1034 and 548 P & AR Department, dated 01.11.1983 and 19.06.1987 respectively, counting the past temporary service for fixation of pay at the time of regularisation in the case of similarly placed persons, who also qualified in the Special Qualifying examination. Hence, it is contended that denying similar benefits to the petitioners is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. 12. The aforesaid averment is not controverted by the respondents in their reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that G.O.Ms.No.1034 P & AR Department, dated 01.11.1983 and G.O.Ms.No.548 P & AR Department, dated 19.06.1987 were issued in respect of Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists, who belong to Tamil Nadu Ministerial service, whose services have been regularised through Special Recruitment and that the petitioners do not belong to Tamil Nadu Ministerial service and hence, they cannot seek the benefit as extended to Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists. I am not in agreement with the averment made by the respondents in the reply affidavit. 13. According to the petitioners, similarly placed persons in the Cooperative Audit Department were extended the benefit viz., fixing their scale based on the pay last drawn in temporary service vide G.O.Ms.No.624 dated 29.10.1989, as stated by them in their representation extracted above. The same is not disputed. Further, in the case of temporary Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists, they were granted the benefit of counting of past temporary service for fixation of their scale on regularisation, pursuant to the Special Qualifying Examination. 14. The same is not disputed. Further, in the case of temporary Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists, they were granted the benefit of counting of past temporary service for fixation of their scale on regularisation, pursuant to the Special Qualifying Examination. 14. Therefore, the Government letter dated 04.12.1998 is contrary to the aforesaid Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.1034 and 548 P & AR Department, dated 01.11.1983 and 19.06.1987 respectively and also G.O.Ms.No.624 Finance Department, dated 29.10.1989. It is well settled that Government Order (G.Os) would prevail over the Government letter. When the Government extended the benefit to similarly situated persons, it is not fair that it has not extended the said benefit to Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. 15. Hence, I am of the view that the Government letter dated 04.12.1998 and the consequential letter of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 14.12.1998 are illegal. The petitioners are entitled to fixation in the appropriate scale of pay by taking into account their last drawn pay in temporary service. It is made clear that the petitioners are seeking only fixation of pay and they do not want to count their past temporary service to determine the seniority. 16. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that if any excess payment was made mistakenly, the same can be recovered. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 [Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others]. He relied on the following passages found in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15:- "13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favoritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col.B.J.Akkara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered." 16. In my view, the said judgment cannot be applied to the case on hand, particularly, when I have already held that that the earlier fixation of pay by taking into account based on their pay last drawn is perfectly in order and the subsequent refixation and recovery in the case of Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies alone is bad, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21, particularly, when similar benefits of taking into account the last drawn pay in the temporary service was granted in the case of Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists belonging to Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and also to similarly placed persons in Cooperative Audit Department, whose services were regularised based on the very same Special Qualifying Examination. 17. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders of the second respondent is liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. 17. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders of the second respondent is liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and the pay of the petitioners should be fixed based on their pay last drawn in temporary service. No costs.