ORDER : 1. The issues involved in both the writ applications are same. Thus, both the writ applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that he is confining his prayer only to the order, by which, it has been directed that the excess payment, which has been made to the petitioners will be recovered from the salary of the petitioners. Thus, in these writ applications, it has to be decided whether the order of recovery from the salary of the petitioners, on the facts of the case, is justified or not. 3. These petitioners are Grade-IV employees, and are serving as ‘Jamadar’ of Jharkhand High Court. The petitioners were appointed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. After reorganization and bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners are working in the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as ‘Jamadar’. A circular was issued on 18.4.2009 by the Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand which approved transport allowance. The said Resolution has been brought on record and marked as Annexure 2 to the writ application. In the said Resolution, it has been mentioned that since different Regional Offices is interpreting differently, the Departmental Resolution No.660/B dated 28.2.2009 read with letter no.841 dated 16.3.2009, by which a new pay scale has been approved for the employees of the State of Jharkhand, it has become necessary to issue the letter dated 18.4.2009 to rationalize the issue in respect of payment of transport allowance. Clause-(IV) of the said letter dated 18.4.2009 provides that employees, who are in the grade pay of Rs.4200-4800/-, are entitled to get transport allowance @ Rs.800/- + dearness allowance. Clause-(V) further provides, that if a person is getting pay in the Band of Rs.7440/- (revised), which correspond to unrevised scale of Rs.4000/- will also get transport allowance @ Rs.800 + dearness allowance. Clause-(VI) of the said letter provides that an employee whose Grade Pay is less than Rs.4200/- is entitled for transport allowance @ Rs.400/- + dearness allowance. 4. After the said order was issued, the petitioners were being paid conveyance allowance @ Rs.800 + dearness allowance. 5. The Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand issued a letter bearing no.3538 dated 19.12.2013 by which clarification was issued in respect of payability of transport allowance. 4. After the said order was issued, the petitioners were being paid conveyance allowance @ Rs.800 + dearness allowance. 5. The Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand issued a letter bearing no.3538 dated 19.12.2013 by which clarification was issued in respect of payability of transport allowance. The said letter reflects that there exists confusion in respect of payability of transport allowance, as a result of which, guideline was sought for, and the matter is, thus, being clarified. The clarifications were given by the said letter dated 19.12.2013, by which Clause-(VI) of the earlier letter no.1304/B dated 18.4.2009 was withdrawn. It was further clarified that those employees, who are being paid salary in the unrevised scale of less than Rs.4000/-8000/- will get conveyance allowance @ Rs.400/- + dearness allowance and not Rs.800/- + dearness allowance. 6. By virtue of the aforementioned letter, after removing all the confusion, it is finalized, that the petitioners are entitled for transport allowance @ Rs.400/- + dearness allowance and not Rs.800/- + dearness allowance. It has been further mentioned in the said letter that, if any employee has been paid transport allowance, at a rate, more than the specified rate in the instant clarificatory letter, the excess amount, so paid, has to be recovered from the salary and should be deposited in the Treasury. 7. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, have challenged the same in the instant writ application. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners confined their challenge to the recovery only. 8. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by virtue of the letter dated 18.4.2009, the petitioners were paid transport allowance @ Rs.800/- + dearness allowance. It has been submitted that the petitioners were granted the said monetary benefit till issuance of the letter dated 19.12.2013. He submits that after issuance of the letter dated 19.12.2013, their transport allowance has been reduced, and the process of recovery has started and, in fact, some amount has been recovered from the salary of each petitioners. It has been further submitted that the petitioners were correctly given transport allowance @ Rs.800/- + dearness allowance in terms of the letter dated 18.4.2009. It has been submitted that the petitioners had got no role in fixing their transport allowance. He further submitted that neither there were any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners nor the petitioners played any fraud in the entire process. It has been submitted that the petitioners had got no role in fixing their transport allowance. He further submitted that neither there were any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners nor the petitioners played any fraud in the entire process. It has been submitted that there was no problem in respect of transport allowance till the letter dated 19.12.2013 (impugned order) was issued. Once the entire situation was clarified, vide letter dated 19.12.2013, and the existing confusion was cleared, it was found that the petitioners were paid excess amount. Further relying upon the impugned annexure, counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the letter itself suggests that the Government authorities were under a confusion, as to what would be the correct amount payable to the petitioners and several employees of the State. This confusion, was ultimately set at rest, by the impugned order and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners were at fault in receiving the amount of Rs.800 + dearness allowance as transport allowance. It has been further submitted that since entire payment was made to the petitioners on the basis of a wrong calculation, that too not at the behest of the petitioners, but at the behest of the State, no amount can recover. He further submitted that since there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of these petitioners, no amount can be recovered from the salary of the petitioners, as contemplated in the impugned letter dated 19.12.2013. He submitted that these petitioners, who are Class-IV employees and working in the Jharkhand High Court and received the transport allowance from 2009 itself, should not be forced to return any amount as they have already spent the amount and it will be highly prejudiced if recovery is sought to be made. 9. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a decision rendered in a case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih as reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [: 2015(1) JLJR (SC)323]. 10. Learned counsel for the State submitted that actually the petitioners were entitled to get transport allowance @ Rs.400/- + dearness allowance but because of some confusion in the letter dated 18.4.2009, they were paid @ Rs.800/- + dearness allowance. The matter stood ultimately clarified and the confusion was cleared by the impugned letter and it was found that the petitioners were paid excess amount as transport allowance. The matter stood ultimately clarified and the confusion was cleared by the impugned letter and it was found that the petitioners were paid excess amount as transport allowance. Thus, an order has been passed to recover the amount and hence, there is no illegality if the excess amount is recovered. 11. Learned counsel for the Hon’ble High Court has submitted that recovery is sought to be made on the basis of direction issued in the impugned order. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following fact emerges :- (a) The petitioners are Class IV employees of the Jharkhand High Court. (b) From 18.4.2009, they were paid transport allowance @ Rs.800/- + dearness allowance. (c) The said rate stood corrected, vide letter dated 19.12.2013 and the amount of transport allowance to be paid to the petitioners were clarified by the Department and it was found that the petitioners are entitled to get transport allowance @ Rs.400/- + dearness allowance. (d) A letter dated 19.12.2013 was issued by the Department and as the Department themselves have felt that there was confusion in the earlier letter dated 18.4.2009 which needs clarification. (e) Further the letter suggests that because of the confusion which has crept up in interpreting the earlier letter dated 18.4.2009, it is necessary to issue a fresh clarificatory letter dated 19.12.2013. (f) No mis-representation or fraud has been committed by any of the petitioners in the entire process. (g) From the letter dated 19.12.2013, it is apparent that excess payment was made by the employer by applying wrong principle for calculating the transport allowance on the basis of a particular interpretation which was subsequently corrected by letter dated 19.12.2013. (h) Some amount has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioners. 13. On these facts, it is to be decided whether the order of recovery is justified or not. It is admitted that excess payment has been made in respect of transport allowance for the period from 18.4.2009 to 18.12.2013. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions has laid down the principle when recovery is not justified. In the case of Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. It is admitted that excess payment has been made in respect of transport allowance for the period from 18.4.2009 to 18.12.2013. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions has laid down the principle when recovery is not justified. In the case of Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India, [ (2006) 11 SCC 709 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances of an employee is not permissible if:- (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of he employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 15. Further the same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 has held as under: 8. “As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee’s right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.” 16. After considering and discussing the case laws in this issue, the instances where recovery would be impermissible, has been summarized in paragraph 18. It is pertinent to quote paragraph 18 of the said judgment which reads as under: 18. “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. It is pertinent to quote paragraph 18 of the said judgment which reads as under: 18. “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group-C and Group-D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. 17. Thus, from perusal of the judgments, referred to above, it emerges that if excess payment is not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employees, and such payment was made by the employer by applying wrong principle for calculating such allowances on the basis of particular interpretation which is subsequently found erroneous, recovery of such excess payment cannot be made. Further recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV was also held to be impermissible. 18. Recovery of excess payment from the salary is restrained not because of any right of an employee, but to protect them from hardship that will be caused to them if recovery is made. It is natural that payment which the Class-III or Class-IV employees received for a long period, is not retained by them, rather they spend the same to maintain their family. If an excess payment is made to him, he genuinely believes that it is his entitlement. It is natural that payment which the Class-III or Class-IV employees received for a long period, is not retained by them, rather they spend the same to maintain their family. If an excess payment is made to him, he genuinely believes that it is his entitlement. Thus, after a long period, passing an order of recovery, affects the economics of the said employees. Thus, balancing the equity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case when the recovery from an employee is more unfair and more wrongful than the right of the employer to recover the amount, recovery should not be made. 19. In the instant case, the employees were being paid excess amount from April, 2009 itself which was corrected only on 19.12.2013. The said impugned annexure suggests that there was confusion prevalent which needed clarification, and thus, a clarification was issued on 19.12.2013. By virtue of the said clarification, it was detected that the petitioners were entitled to get transport allowance at lower rate, but, in fact, were paid such allowance at a higher rate, resulting in excess payment. This clearly goes to suggest that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. It also suggests that payment was made applying wrong principle and/or on the basis of wrong interpretation which was subsequently found erroneous. 20. It is admitted that the petitioners are Class-IV staff. 21. Thus, I find that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India (supra), and in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra). 22. Applying the said principle, I find that the impugned order by which it has been ordered to recover the excess amount so paid, from the salary of the petitioners, is bad and is liable to be set aside. 23. Thus, the direction given in letter no.3538 dated 19.12.2013 to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners is set aside. It is directed that no amount from the salary of the petitioners would be recovered on the pretext of excess payment made from 18.4.2009 to 19.12.2013 on account of transport allowance. 24. 23. Thus, the direction given in letter no.3538 dated 19.12.2013 to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners is set aside. It is directed that no amount from the salary of the petitioners would be recovered on the pretext of excess payment made from 18.4.2009 to 19.12.2013 on account of transport allowance. 24. Since it has been declared that order of recovery from the salary in respect of the petitioners is bad, I direct the authorities to refund the amount which has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioners. The said amount should be refunded within a period of three months from today. 25. In view of the fact of the case and taking into consideration the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, these two writ applications stand allowed.