JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. The judgment dated 30.10.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.19103 of 2010 is appealed against by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board'). By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts relevant to decide this writ appeal are as under :- The respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed as Cashier in the appellant Board on 12.10.1992. At that time, she had possessed the qualification of Degree in Engineering also. As per the Service Rules of the appellant Board, the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) can be filled up from among 10% of the officials working in the Board having Engineering Degree qualification. Pursuant to such rules, the respondent was appointed by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as per the aforesaid quota on 16.3.1996, as per Ext.P1. Similar appointments were made in different departments, however, there was a lot of objection with regard to fixing of date of appointment. Ultimately, the matter came up before this Court in Original Petition Nos.914 of 2000 and 9273 of 2000, which came to be disposed of with a direction to re-assign the dates of appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), with reference to cadre strength. Pursuant to the said judgment, the dates of first appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the 10% quota were re-assigned as per Ext.P2. The name of the respondent finds place at 'Serial No.82'. Though the date of appointment of the respondent was re-assigned as 7.7.2000 instead of 16.3.1996, the said date was further revised as 1.4.1999. These facts are not in dispute. The re-assigned date of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in 10% quota as 1.4.1999 remained unchallenged so far by the respondent. But, as mentioned supra, she was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from 16.3.1996 onwards continuously. On completion of 10 years' of service, the employees including the respondent are entitled to get grade promotion in case of non-availability of promotional post. The first grade promotion granted in favour of the respondent was on 16.3.2006 based on the initial date of appointment as 16.3.1996. Actually, that promotion ought to have been granted in favour of the respondent based on the re-assigned date of appointment, i.e., 1.4.1999. The first grade promotion granted in favour of the respondent was on 16.3.2006 based on the initial date of appointment as 16.3.1996. Actually, that promotion ought to have been granted in favour of the respondent based on the re-assigned date of appointment, i.e., 1.4.1999. Consequently, audit objection was raised and in the said audit objection, it was directed to recover all the emoluments paid in favour of the respondent from 16.3.1996 to 1.4.1999. Similar orders were issued in favour of other persons, whose date of appointments were wrongly shown and re-assigned pursuant to Ext.P2. 3. The respondent filed her statement of objection to the audit report and after considering the same, Ext.P4 order dated 31.5.2010 came to be issued by the competent authority, ordering to recover a sum of Rs.4,10,441/- from the respondent, which was paid in excess to her for the period from November, 2000 to April, 2010. The said period was fixed based on the audit objection, which was taken place in the year 2010. Thus, it is clear that the recovery was ordered by the authorised officer based on the payment made to the respondent prior to the audit objection. Questioning Ext.P4 as well as seeking a declaration that her service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) be regularised with effect from 16.3.2006 itself and for other consequential benefits, the respondent approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, which came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment quashing Ext.P4 order and declaring that the respondent would not be liable to pay any amount to the appellant Board, consequent to the said order or the audit report. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the appellant shall refix the pay and grant benefits of pay revision on the basis that she had been appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.3.1996, as mentioned in Ext.P1 appointment order. It is further declared that the re-assigned date of 1.4.1999 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment as 4.11.2000) shall be applied to the respondent only for the purpose of determining her seniority in service. 4. It is further declared that the re-assigned date of 1.4.1999 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment as 4.11.2000) shall be applied to the respondent only for the purpose of determining her seniority in service. 4. Sri.Raju Joseph, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, taking us to the material on record, submits that the learned Single Judge is not justified in quashing Ext.P4 and declaring that the respondent will not be liable to pay any amount to the appellant Board consequent to Ext.P4 order or the audit report. It was also directed to grant benefit of pay revision on the basis that the respondent has been appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.3.1996 instead of 1.4.1999. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, who argued in support of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, contends that the respondent was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 16.3.1996; she has been discharging duty as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from that date onwards and therefore, the said date has to be taken as her date of appointment for all practical purposes, inasmuch as she was never reverted to the post of Cashier subsequently. Thus, in sum and substance, learned counsel submits that the date of appointment of the respondent in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) shall be 16.3.1996 only and at the most, the learned Single Judge has concluded that 1.4.1999 can be taken as the date for fixing her seniority in service. 5. Having gone through the materials on record and after having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs to be modified to a certain extent. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Cashier on 12.10.1992. It is also not in dispute that she is an Engineering graduate and was appointed by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.3.1996, not based on the cadre strength, but based on the availability of vacancies. Similar appointments were made in different departments and a number of objections were filed by the concerned employees. It is also not in dispute that she is an Engineering graduate and was appointed by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.3.1996, not based on the cadre strength, but based on the availability of vacancies. Similar appointments were made in different departments and a number of objections were filed by the concerned employees. Ultimately, the matter reached before this Court in O.P Nos.914 of 2000 and 9273 of 2000, which came to be disposed of directing the department to re-assign the dates of appointments in respect of persons, including the respondent, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Consequently, the date of appointment of the respondent to the said post was re-assigned as 7.7.2000 as per Ext.P2, which was subsequently re-assigned as 1.4.1999. These facts are not disputed. The re-assigned date of 1.4.1999 remained unchallenged by the respondent. Therefore, the date of initial appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), insofar as the respondent is concerned, shall be 1.4.1999 only. Thus, it is not open for the respondent to contend that her date of initial appointment was 16.3.1996. Though, as mentioned supra, she was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 16.3.1996, on the basis of the judgment in O.P Nos.914 of 2000 and 9273 of 2000, her date of appointment was re-assigned as 1.4.1999 and the said date was unchallenged by her. Therefore, the said date needs to be taken as her date of initial appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). However, as mentioned supra, the respondent had worked as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from 16.3.1996, i.e., prior to re-assignment of the date of appointment as 1.4.1999. She had drawn the salary and other emoluments attached to the said post. She was even granted increments regularly and after completion of 10 years' of service she was given grade promotion also with effect from 16.3.2006. She had drawn the salary based on the grade promotion also. However, the anomalies mentioned supra came to the lime light only based on the audit report in the year 2010. Till such time, though the respondent's re-assigned date of initial appointment was 1.4.1999, the department was treating her as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.3.1996 for all practical purposes and on the said basis, she was paid salary, increments, first grade promotion, etc. Till such time, though the respondent's re-assigned date of initial appointment was 1.4.1999, the department was treating her as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 16.3.1996 for all practical purposes and on the said basis, she was paid salary, increments, first grade promotion, etc. Based on the audit report of the year 2010, Ext.P4 order came to be passed, calling upon the respondent to re-pay an amount of Rs.4,10,441/- paid in excess to her for the period from November, 2000 to April, 2010. The said order came to be questioned before this Court. Though the respondent was entitled to the salary of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from 16.3.1996 to November, 2000 (the period during which she had worked as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) for all practical purposes), she was not entitled to such benefits atleast from the date of the order based on the audit objection. Though certain amounts were paid in excess to the respondent mistakenly from 16.3.1996 to November, 2000, the same cannot be recovered by the Board, in view of the fact that the respondent was not faulted in getting such excess pay attached to the post which she was holding during the said period. The Board had consciously paid salaries to the respondent. As mentioned supra, the respondent had worked as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from 16.3.1996, though her entitlement was only from 1.4.1999. Merely because she was not entitled to appointment for the period from 16.3.1996 to 1.4.1999, the salaries, which were paid to her while working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) cannot be recovered by the Board. Even otherwise, as per Ext.P4 order, the Board has not made any attempts to recover the salaries paid to the respondent from 16.3.1996 to November, 2000. However, by passing Ext.P4 order, the Board has merely directed the respondent to re-pay an amount of Rs.4,10,441/-, which was paid in excess to her for the period from November, 2000 to April, 2010. 6. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], 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, is not permissible. In the matter on hand also, though the respondent was rightfully required to discharge the duties of an inferior post, Cashier, for the period from 16.3.1996 to 1.4.1999, she was wrongfully required to discharge the duties of a higher post, Assistant Engineer (Electrical), during the said period and has been paid accordingly. In this context, it is not open for the appellant Board to recover any amount from the respondent, which was paid to her prior to 1.4.1999. The Board has not ventured to pass any order against the respondent for recovering any amount. However, what is to be done under Ext.P4, the impugned order, is to seek recovery of the payments made in favour of the respondent in excess of her entitlement after November, 2000 to April, 2010. This is a period after notice had been given to the respondent stating that she was not entitled to excess payment. As mentioned supra, the audit objection took place in the year 2010. It was only thereafter the Board came to know that excess amounts were paid to the respondent. Since the respondent was not at fault, it cannot be said that it is a case of unjust and enrichment of the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent was wrongly paid salaries in excess of her entitlement and was given grade promotion with effect from 16.3.2006, that is, after 10 years from 16.3.1996. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Board is not entitled to recover any amount from the respondent, which is already paid prior to the date of notice issued to her, based on the audit objection. If any amount was paid to the respondent subsequent to the audit report, the same needs to be recovered from her. However, till such audit report, no recovery is permissible. For the purpose of future emoluments, promotion, seniority etc., the date of appointment of the respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) shall be 1.4.1999. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of with the following clarifications :- (a) The judgment dated 30.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19103 of 2010, quashing Ext.P4 is confirmed. (b) It is not open for the appellant Board to recover any amount from the respondent paid in excess to her entitlement prior to the date of audit report of the year 2010. (b) It is not open for the appellant Board to recover any amount from the respondent paid in excess to her entitlement prior to the date of audit report of the year 2010. (c) The respondent is liable to repay amount, if any, drawn in excess of her entitlement subsequent to the date of audit report. (d) 1.4.1999 shall be treated as the date of initial appointment of the respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) for all purposes including seniority, promotion, emoluments, etc. (e) Arrears, if any, to be paid in favour of the respondent based on the pay revision, increments, etc. shall be paid to her, keeping in mind her date of initial appointment to the said post as 1.4.1999.