ORDER : (Prayer (in W.P.(MD) No.13040 of 2009): Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.Va. 3/27271/2009, dated 10.07.2009 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary in sofar as the petitioners are concerned and consequently forbear the respondents from recovering the arrears paid to the petitioners. W.P.(MD) No.13114 of 2009): Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.Va.3/27271/2009, dated 10.07.2009 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary in sofar as the petitioners are concerned and consequently forbear the respondents from recovering the arrears paid to the petitioners.) 1. The order of recovery dated 10.07.2009 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petitions by the team of writ petitioners. 2. The writ petitioners are working as Panchayat Assistants in Thoothukudi District and the grievances of the writ petitioners are that the impugned order of recovery dated 10.07.2009 had been issued by the third respondent without issuing any show-cause notice and opportunity to them and further, the impugned order is in violation of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998. 3. It is contended that when the writ petitioners were working as Panchayat Assistants in Thoothukudi District under the administrative control of the District Collector, pay revision was granted on the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee and pursuant to the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, wherein the Government directed to grant revision of pay by allowing 40% increment subject to the minimum benefit of Rs.50/- per month, after adjusting the third instalment of interim relief. In this regard, the Government also issued a letter dated 04.03.1999, wherein it is stated that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, is not applicable to the employees in the Panchayat and sought for recovery of the amount paid. 4. It is stated that the benefits granted in G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, cannot be taken away by way of a Government Letter issued by the first respondent in Letter dated 04.03.1999. 4. It is stated that the benefits granted in G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, cannot be taken away by way of a Government Letter issued by the first respondent in Letter dated 04.03.1999. This apart, it is contended that the impugned order of recovery has been issued unilaterally without issuing any show-cause notice and opportunity to the writ petitioners and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The issues to be considered in the present writ petitions are that non-issuance of show-cause notice whether would vitiate the impugned order or not? Secondly, the benefits granted to these Panchayat Assistants, who are all Group-III employees, can be recovered after a lapse of many years? 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that any order affecting the service conditions of the employee cannot be issued without providing an opportunity to such an employee. Thus, for issuance of an order of recovery, issuing a show-cause and providing an opportunity are undoubtedly preconditions. Thus, the authorities competent are entitled to issue order of recovery only after providing a reasonable opportunity of show-cause notice to the employee concerned. Thus, the impugned order in the present writ petitions had been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The writ petitioners were working as Panchayat Assistants in various Panchayats in the District of Thoothukudi. They are Group-III employees. Thus, even in case of erroneous fixation of scale of pay, the payment already made cannot be recovered and the authorities competent are empowered to correct the mistakes, if any, in the revision of scale of pay. In other words, the errors occurred in the revision of scale of pay shall be rectified by the authorities competent and a correct scale of pay in accordance with the Government Orders and the Pay Rules in force shall be paid to the employees. However, the excess payment, if any, made at the instance of the Establishment cannot be recovered from the Group-III employees, after a lapse of many years. In the present case on hand, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.191, during the year 1998 and the impugned order has been issued during the year 2009, after a lapse of ten years. 8. However, the excess payment, if any, made at the instance of the Establishment cannot be recovered from the Group-III employees, after a lapse of many years. In the present case on hand, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.191, during the year 1998 and the impugned order has been issued during the year 2009, after a lapse of ten years. 8. The legal principles, in this regard, are settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . The relevant Paragraph is extracted hereunder: “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 summarise 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.” 9. The Apex Court in unambiguous terms held that recovery of excess pay cannot be made from the retired employees as well as the employees working in Group-III and Group-IV services. The Apex Court in unambiguous terms held that recovery of excess pay cannot be made from the retired employees as well as the employees working in Group-III and Group-IV services. In the present case, there is no misrepresentation or otherwise on part of the writ petitioners and accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the errors in the scale of pay can be rectified by the authorities competent and while doing so, they cannot recover the excess payment already made to the employees. 10. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.Va.3/27271/2009, dated 10.07.2009, is quashed. The respondents are directed to rectify the errors in the scale of pay of the writ petitioners. However, the excess payment already made cannot be recovered from the employees. If any such amount was already recovered, the same is directed to be reimbursed to the writ petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed. No costs.