JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Appellants/State/Writ-Respondents, by means of present appeal, have assailed the judgment dated 23.1.2015, passed by learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No.8269 of 2013 titled Devinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby pay fixation order dated 8.5.2013, determining entitlement of the respondent/writ-petitioner to receive wages/pay, has been modified dis-entitling the appellants/State to make recovery proposed from the respondent/writ-petitioner. 2. The respondent/writ-petitioner was engaged as a beldar on daily wage basis w.e.f. May, 1991 and was promoted as Work Inspector in November, 1996 and he served as Work Inspector till 31.12.2000 as w.e.f. 1.1.2001, he was regularized as beldar on completion of 10 years after his appointment as beldar. The respondent/writ-petitioner has filed an Original Application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, claiming his regularization on higher post i.e. Work Inspector, as he was promoted as Work Inspector in November, 1996 and at the time of regularization of beldar in 2000-2001 he was working as daily wage Work Inspector. In the year 2008, after abolition of the Administrative Tribunal, his petition was transferred to this High Court and was registered as CWP(T) No.16471 of 2008 and was decided on 13.7.2012, directing the appellants to regularize his service as Work Inspector w.e.f. 11.10.2007, in terms of directions issued by this Court in Gauri Dutt and Others Vs. State of H.P., 2008 LatestHLJ 366 (HP), on completion of 10 years after his appointment/promotion on higher post i.e. Work Inspector. 3. In compliance of aforesaid judgment, appellants had issued an order on 12.2.2013 (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner, whereby services of respondent/writ-petitioner were regularized as Work Inspector w.e.f. 11.10.2007. After issuance of order dated 12.2.2013 (Annexure P-1), appellants had ordered pay fixation of respondent/writ-petitioner vide order dated 22.3.2013 and thereafter, vide order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-2), had ordered recovery as under:- "The arrear of pay shall be prepared as per pay fixation order dated 22.3.2013 by effecting the recovery as mentioned below:- 1. 1.1.2001 to 10.10.2007: He has drawn the pay of WC Beldar, whereas he is entitled to get the daily wage wages of Work Inspector. 2. 11.10.2007 to date of his joining as Work Inspector, he has got the pay of WC Beldar, but entitled for pay of regular Work Inspector". 4. 1.1.2001 to 10.10.2007: He has drawn the pay of WC Beldar, whereas he is entitled to get the daily wage wages of Work Inspector. 2. 11.10.2007 to date of his joining as Work Inspector, he has got the pay of WC Beldar, but entitled for pay of regular Work Inspector". 4. The recovery proposed in order dated 8.5.2013 (supra) was assailed by respondent/writ-petitioner in CWP No.8269 of 2013 and judgment passed therein by learned Single Judge is under challenge herein this appeal, wherein the respondent/writ-petitioner has been held entitled for salary of work charge beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 till 31.12.2006 with all consequential monetary benefits and salary of Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.2007 with all consequential monetary benefits with clarification that amount already paid to the petitioner in capacity of regular beldar will be adjusted. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that regularization of respondent/writ-petitioner as a beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 was found to be contrary to the judgment passed in Gauri Dutt's case (supra) and, therefore, he has to be considered as daily wage Work Inspector throughout after November, 1996 till his regularization as Work Inspector w.e.f. 11.10.2007 and therefore, for the said period, he would be entitled for emoluments payable to daily wage Work Inspector, whereas he has received salary/wages payable to regular work charge beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 to 10.10.2007 and therefore, action of appellant/State directing recovery of excess amount paid to respondent/writ-petitioner on this count is justified and respondent/writ-petitioner would be entitled for salary as regular Work Inspector only w.e.f. 11.10.2007. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has contended that there was no fault on the part of respondent/writ-petitioner and entire mess has been created by mistake committed by the appellants, for which respondent/writ-petitioner cannot be blamed and made to suffer as the said mistake of the appellants could be rectified only after approaching the Court by the respondent/writ petitioner. He has also put reliance on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in case State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein it is held that recovery proposed by the appellants/State is impermissible in Law. 7. In Rafiq Masih's case (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:- 6. He has also put reliance on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in case State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein it is held that recovery proposed by the appellants/State is impermissible in Law. 7. In Rafiq Masih's case (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:- 6. "In view of the conclusions extracted hereinabove, it will be our endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not an accessory to the mistake committed by the employer; or merely because the employee did not furnish any factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due to him; or for that matter, merely because the excessive payment was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee. 7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would fat outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court. 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 perused 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". ..... ....... ...... "12. Reference may first of all be made to the decision of Syed Abdul Qudir Vs. State of Bihar, wherein this Court recorded the following observation in para 58 : (SCC p. 491) "58. The relief against recovery is granted by 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. But, 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, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess, Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Shyam babu Verma Vs. Union of India, Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram Vs. Director, B.J. Akkara Vs. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB Vs. Bijay Bhadur". ..... ....... ...... 15. "Examining a similar proposition, this Court in B.J. Akkara Vs. Govt. State of Haryana, Shyam babu Verma Vs. Union of India, Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram Vs. Director, B.J. Akkara Vs. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB Vs. Bijay Bhadur". ..... ....... ...... 15. "Examining a similar proposition, this Court in B.J. Akkara Vs. Govt. of India observed as under: 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be cause if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery". ..... ....... ...... 16. "This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar held as follows: "59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made". 8. Finally, in para 18 of aforesaid Rafiq Masih's case, the Apex Court has concluded 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, summaries 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. (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. In present case, it is undisputed that respondent/writ-petitioner does not belong to Class II or Class I, but to Class III and there was no mis-representation or fraud on his part for getting him regularized as a beldar and to receive salary on basis of said regularization/work charge status since 1.1.2001 till his regularization as a Work Inspector. Rather it was a mistake committed by the appellants in applying the ratio of Law laid down by the Apex Court and this High Court, which have attained finality. Therefore, as per ratio of Law laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case, recovery sought to be effected from respondent/writ-petitioner is impermissible in Law. 10. There is another angle in the present case. Undoubtedly, respondent/writ-petitioner has served as a regular/work charge beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 till 12.2.2013 and has received salary for performing duties against the post of regular/work charge beldar. For this period, he has not received any excess salary than the entitlement of a regular beldar. Further, vide judgment dated 13.7.2012, the appellants were directed to regularize the service of respondent/writ-petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2007 on completion of 10 years of his service after his promotion as daily wage Work Inspector by applying the ratio of Law laid down in Gauri Dutt's case and therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner would be entitled for salary as a Regular Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.2007, whereas vide order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-2), he has been held entitled for salary of Regular Work Inspector w.e.f. 11.10.2007, which is in violation of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP (T) No.16471 of 2008, as there was an unambiguous direction to appellants to regularize the service of the respondent/writ petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2007. Therefore, the appellants were not having any authority to regularize the service of respondent/writ-petitioner as Work Inspector and to restrict his salary as such w.e.f. 11.10.2007 instead of 1.1.2007. 11. Therefore, the appellants were not having any authority to regularize the service of respondent/writ-petitioner as Work Inspector and to restrict his salary as such w.e.f. 11.10.2007 instead of 1.1.2007. 11. So far as receiving the salary of work charge beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 to 10.10.2007 is concerned, as discussed supra, the respondent/writ-petitioner has received salary while he was serving as a work charge beldar, but he was agitating for his claim for regularization as Work Inspector by filing the petition in the Administrative Tribunal/High Court and during that period he had performed the duty as a work charge beldar and not as a daily wages Work Inspector. Therefore, for that period, fixing his pay/wages at the rate of daily wage Inspector, is not permissible. He is entitled to receive the salary/wages against the post, for which he has performed his duties, but for fault on the part of appellants. 12. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that learned Single Judge has not committed any mistake by holding that respondent/writ-petitioner will be entitled for the salary of work charge/regular beldar w.e.f. 1.1.2001 till 31.12.2006 with all consequential monetary benefits and for salary of Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.2007 with all consequential monetary benefits. So far as the adjustment of payment of salary as a regular beldar is concerned, the same, in view of the ratio of Law laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case, is to be construed that in case the respondent/writ-petitioner is entitled for over and above the said salary, the said amount shall be paid to the respondent/writ-petitioner and in case it is found that he has received excessive salary for the said period, recovery of the said amount shall not be permissible under the Law. 13. With the aforesaid observations, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.