JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.3.2011 by which the Director, Ayurvedic Services, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Director’) has withdrawn the recommendation granted by the Committee giving promotional pay-scale. For facility, the facts of writ petition No. 29360 of 2011 filed by Pradeshik Chikitsa Avam Samudayik Sewa Sangh is taken into consideration. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 67496 of 2011 have also challenged the Government Order dated 15.11.2011, by which the State Government has withdrawn the earlier Government Order dated 18.6.2010. 2. The Union of doctors contends that it’s members were appointed as Medical Officer (Community Health) under the Director of Ayurvedic Services, U.P.Lucknow on ad hoc basis in the year 1986 and are posted at various Primary Health Centres in various districts of State of Uttar Pradesh. It is contended that the services of the doctors are governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh State Medical and Community Health (Group ‘A’ and ‘B’) Service Rules, 2003, in which the appointing authority is the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, their services were regularized under the provision of U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments(On the Post Within The Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended from time to time. Pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 3.6.1989 providing promotional pay-scale without actual promotion to avoid stagnation of the employees upon completion of 08 years,14 years and 19 years of service. Upon completion of 08 years, the first promotional pay-scale was granted. Subsequently, the Director by a letter dated 31.8.2009, addressed to the State Government made a request for releasing the second promotional pay-scale to the doctors upon completion of 14 years of service. At this stage, a dispute arose as to whether ad hoc period would be counted for the purpose of releasing the promotional pay-scale. This controversy was settled by the State Government by issuance of a Government Order dated 5.2.1998. Subsequently, by a Government Order dated 18.6.2010, the State Government clarified that the services of the doctors on ad hoc basis would be counted for providing the benefit of promotional pay-scale after completion of 08 years, 14 years and 19 years but the said benefit would be released only after the Medical Officers are regularized on their post (s). 3. Subsequently, by a Government Order dated 18.6.2010, the State Government clarified that the services of the doctors on ad hoc basis would be counted for providing the benefit of promotional pay-scale after completion of 08 years, 14 years and 19 years but the said benefit would be released only after the Medical Officers are regularized on their post (s). 3. Pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission, a new scheme of promotional benefit on personal basis was introduced known as Assured Career Progressive Scheme (ACP). The State Government in order to implement the ACP, issued a Government Order dated 5.11.2009 but the same was cancelled and a fresh Government Order was issued on 4.5.2010, which provided that the new scheme of ACP would be applicable from 1.12.2008. Under this scheme, the promotional benefit was to be given upon completion of 10 years, 18 years and 26 years of service. Under this Government Order dated 4.5.2010, a Committee was to be constituted by the Director,Ayurvedic Services and this Committee was to make recommendations to the competent authority or the authority competent to sanction financial upgradation. The recommendations were required to be accepted by the appropriate authority or the accepting authority. Based on this Government Order dated 4.5.2010, the Director constituted a Committee. This Committee made certain recommendations, which were accepted by the Director and the third promotional scale, upon completion of 26 years of service, was released. The members of the petitioners’ Sangh started enjoying the benefits. The petitioners contend that the Director by an order dated 5.1.2011 for reasons best known to him dissolved the Committee on the ground that it was not functioning properly and subsequently, by another order dated 10.3.2011 withdrew the recommendation issued by this Committee on the sole ground that the Committee was not functioning properly. The Sangh and other members, being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the recommendation that had already been implemented, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The State Government had issued a Government Order dated 5.2.1998 clarifying that the promotional benefit would be given upon completion of 08 years of service provided the incumbent had been regularized in service. If the incumbent had not been regularized, then the promotional scale would be given only when the employee was regularized. 4. The State Government had issued a Government Order dated 5.2.1998 clarifying that the promotional benefit would be given upon completion of 08 years of service provided the incumbent had been regularized in service. If the incumbent had not been regularized, then the promotional scale would be given only when the employee was regularized. This Government Order was clarified by another Government Order dated 18.6.2010 indicating that the ad hoc period would be counted towards regular services pursuant to the order of regularization. The State Government thereafter further issued another Government Order dated 15.11.2011 clarifying that personal pay-scale would be admissible after counting the services rendered on ad hoc basis but on the date of giving benefit, it would be necessary that the concerned person holding the post should have been regularized in service. Paragraph 3 of the Government Order further clarified that if regularization had not been made upto the date of completion of 08 years of service, the personal pay-scale would be given from the date of regularization. This Government Order also clarified that only 20% of the promotional post would be utilized for the purpose of giving the second promotional pay-scale. This Government Order led to the filing of writ petition No. 67496 of 2011. 5. On these facts, we have heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri B.G.Bhai Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. The counter-affidavit reveals a mini scam which was unearthed by the State Government. It was contended that the recommendation made by the Committee was required to be approved by the State Government, which was not done in the instant case and consequently, all the recommendations made by the Committee were wholly illegal and rightly withdrawn by the Director. It was also contended that the benefit of promotional scheme pursuant to the Government Order dated 4.5.2010 was required to be given with effect from 1.12.2008 but was wrongly given with effect from 1.1.2006 and, therefore, the excess benefit given was liable to be recovered from the Medical Officers. 7. The affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 32977 of 2011, from paragraph 18 onwards, indicates that on account of the illegalities committed by the Committee, the Chief Secretary constituted a three member Committee for making a preliminary enquiry. 7. The affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 32977 of 2011, from paragraph 18 onwards, indicates that on account of the illegalities committed by the Committee, the Chief Secretary constituted a three member Committee for making a preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry report suggested that the officers and employees of the Ayurved Directorate were involved alongwith two members of the Screening Committee. The affidavit further reveals that disciplinary proceeding against the members of the Committee as well as against the Director has been constituted and these persons have been placed under suspension. Further, employees of the Directorate, who were found responsible for granting promotional benefit from 1.1.2006 onwards have been suspended and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. The affidavit further indicates that on account of loss of crores of rupees being caused to the State exchequer, the order of recommendation was withdrawn by the Director, which does not require interference by the writ Court. 8. Upon a perusal of the Government Order dated 4.5.2010, we find that the Committee was required to be constituted by the Director. Clause 5(4) of the Government Order indicates that the Committee had to be constituted by the Cadre Controlling Authority, which in the instant case is the Director. Consequently, the Director was justified in constituting the Committee and it is wrong on behalf of the State Government to urge that it is the Government alone, who was competent to constitute the Committee. The recommendation was to be made by the Committee, which was required to be approved either by the State Government or by the authority competent to sanction financial upgradation. It has been urged that some recommendations were accepted by the Director but majority of the recommendations given by the Committee was not placed before the Director and that the financial controller, on its own, released the benefits pursuant to the recommendations given by the Committee. The learned Standing Counsel has thus tried to justify the withdrawal of the recommendation on this ground itself. 9. We are unable to accept this assertion. The impugned order does not speak on this aspect. The impugned order dated 10.3.2011 only indicates that the recommendation was being withdrawn because the Committee was not functioning properly. The reasons for withdrawal of the recommendation could have been the basis which have been indicated in the counter-affidavit but the same cannot be culled out from the impugned order. 10. The impugned order does not speak on this aspect. The impugned order dated 10.3.2011 only indicates that the recommendation was being withdrawn because the Committee was not functioning properly. The reasons for withdrawal of the recommendation could have been the basis which have been indicated in the counter-affidavit but the same cannot be culled out from the impugned order. 10. We are of the opinion that when it is admitted by the State Government that the recommendations of the Committee was implemented and the benefit was passed on to the doctors, the same cannot be withdrawn unilaterally without giving a notice to the doctors. In our opinion, the withdrawal of the recommendation after it was implemented without giving due notice to the doctors is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 10.3.2011, on this short ground cannot be sustained and is quashed. 11. We find that the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 5.2.1998, which indicated that upon completion of 08 years of service, if the incumbent was not regularized, promotional benefit would only be given when the incumbent was regularized. This Government Order dated 18.6.2010 clarified that the ad hoc period would be counted towards regular service but only pursuant to the order of regularization. We find that there was no need for further clarification as the Government Orders dated 5.2.1998 and 18.6.2010 clearly clarified the stand of the State Government, namely, that ad hoc period would be counted for providing promotional pay-scale. The only embargo was that the benefit would be made available pursuant to the order of regularization. In the light of the aforesaid, the withdrawal of the Government notification dated 18.6.2010 by the impugned Government Order dated 15.11.2011 will not help the matter so long as the Government Order dated 5.2.1998 exists. Paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 15.11.2011 indicates that personal pay-scale would be given from the date of regularization leaving out ad hoc period, which is against the Government Order dated 5.2.1998. We further find that the Government Order dated 15.11.2011 provides that the promotional pay-scale would be given to only 20% incumbents. No justification has been given by the State Government in the counter-affidavit as to why the State Government is confining the promotional scheme to only 20% of the posts. Admittedly, there are no promotional avenue to the Medical Officers. We further find that the Government Order dated 15.11.2011 provides that the promotional pay-scale would be given to only 20% incumbents. No justification has been given by the State Government in the counter-affidavit as to why the State Government is confining the promotional scheme to only 20% of the posts. Admittedly, there are no promotional avenue to the Medical Officers. A Medical Officer gets appointment as a Medical Officer and retires as a Medical Officer and if promotional benefit is given to only 20%, the remaining would suffer irreparable loss and discrimination. Such discrimination cannot be allowed to stand. The Government Order dated 15.11.2011 confining the promotion to only 20% of the posts is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The impugned Government Order dated 15.11.2011 is, accordingly, quashed. 12. Even though the reliefs sought by the petitioners have been given, the Courts cannot lose sight of the irregularities pointed out by the State Government. Undue benefits, if any, cannot be granted to the Medical Officers. Largesse cannot be distributed in a manner which brings loss to the State exchequer. If excess benefit has been given deliberately by a wrong recommendation of the Committee, the same requires correction immediately and excess money paid is required to be returned to the State Government. 13. Orders passed by an employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the employees has been considered by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments. The Supreme Court held that recovery can only be interfered with in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. In the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the Supreme Court held that the interference would be called for only in such cases where it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. The parameters laid down in various decisions was considered on the touchstone of the doctrine of equity defined in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India. The parameters laid down in various decisions was considered on the touchstone of the doctrine of equity defined in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra) held that an action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount, or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. 14. In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , the Supreme Court held that the relief against the recovery is granted by the Courts not because of any right in the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. The Supreme Court held that if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, in that event, the recovery of the payment made was justified. Similar view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 . 15. Taking a clue from these cases, the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra) reiterated the aforesaid proposition, namely, that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery and such recovery would be an arbitrary action in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra) further defined as to what would constitute a short period of time. The Supreme Court held that if the excess payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the same. 16. The Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra) further defined as to what would constitute a short period of time. The Supreme Court held that if the excess payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the same. 16. In the instant case, the Government issued the Government Order on 4.5.2010 introducing the ACP. The promotional scheme was implemented soon thereafter. Immediately thereafter the irregularities were detected and the recommendations were withdrawn. The petitioners approached the writ Court. An interim order was passed in 2011, as a result, the petitioner continued to avail the benefit. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the excess payment, if any, was detected within a short span of time. If it is found that excess money has been paid, the same, in our opinion is liable to be recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be benefited from an interim order. The interim order only kept the impugned order in abeyance. Even though we have quashed the impugned orders, the promotional benefit as per the Government Order dated 4.5.2010 has to be implemented. If excess payment has been made, the same will have to be returned to the Government. 17. During the course of argument, the Court was informed that the State Government constituted a fresh Committee on 4.1.2013 for implementation of ACP scheme. Nothing has been brought on record as to what work this Committee has done. Since various irregularities has been pointed out with regard to the implementation of promotional scheme and it has been urged that wrongful benefit has been given retrospectively, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 18. (i)The Committee constituted by the State Government on 4.1.2013 will review all the recommendations made by the previous committee in each individual cases. (ii) If the recommendation given by the previous Committee is found to be proper, the Committee will affirm the recommendations. (iii) If the Committee finds irregularities in the recommendations given by the previous Committee, it will issue a notice to the individual doctor to show-cause as to why the benefit so granted should not be recovered. Upon such reply being received, the Committee will pass an appropriate order affirming, modifying or withdrawing the recommendations. (iii) If the Committee finds irregularities in the recommendations given by the previous Committee, it will issue a notice to the individual doctor to show-cause as to why the benefit so granted should not be recovered. Upon such reply being received, the Committee will pass an appropriate order affirming, modifying or withdrawing the recommendations. (iv) If the Committee finds that the recommendation was not approved by the Director but finds that the recommendations were genuine, the Committee will affirm, or approve or grant post facto approval of such recommendations. (v) If the Committee finds that excess payment was made to the doctors, the same would be recovered from the recipients, namely, the doctors, who have been given such benefit. (vi) Such recovery would be made from their salary in installments, and if, in the meanwhile, the said doctors have retired, the same shall be recovered from their post retiral benefits. (vii) Such exercise shall be carried out by the Committee within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ——————