ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. Heard Sri N. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20304 and 22607 of 2005, Smt K. Mani Deepika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.8604 of 2005 and Sri CH. Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.20304 & 8604 of 2005. 2. These three writ petitions are filed by the Union of India challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.328 of 2003 dated 29.04.2004, O.A.No.778 of 2002 dated 22.07.2005 and O.A.No.782 of 2002 dated 22.07.2005, directing the respondents/ petitioners herein, not to affect recovery of the excess amount paid on account of wrong calculation of the allowances paid to the Extra Departmental (ED) Agents. As the issue in all the writ petitions is same, by this common order, they are considered and disposed of. 3. According to petitioners, Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) to various categories of ED Agents were fixed on the basis of workload calculated on foot beat irrespective of the fact that the area is cycleable or non cycleable. On review of allowances and as recommended by the fourth Extra Departmental Committee, appointed for this purpose, payment of enhanced cycle allowance at Rs.20/- per month was granted with effect from 01.11.1986. This enhancement was granted with an objective to speed up the conveyance work by using cycles. According to the assessment of petitioners, the time to cover 1 KM on foot beat is 12 minutes whereas on cycle it would be 6 minutes. Therefore, the workload calculated on cycle beat is 50% of the workload of foot beat. In view thereof, the allowances of ED Agents was reduced by 50% at the time of introducing the concept of calculating the work load on cycle beat despite payment of enhanced rate of cycle allowance. However, in order to ensure that there is no drop in emoluments and to protect the allowance fixed on foot beat, the cut off date of 01.11.1987 was prescribed. A decision was taken to determine the allowance to the ED Agents appointed on or after 01.11.1987, wherever cycleable track was available, at the rate of Rs.20/- per month on the cycle beat. As respondents were appointed prior to 01.11.1987, their allowances fixed on foot beat basis was protected and they were allowed to draw allowances fixed on foot beat basis. 4. As respondents were appointed prior to 01.11.1987, their allowances fixed on foot beat basis was protected and they were allowed to draw allowances fixed on foot beat basis. 4. The Fourth ED Committee was set up by the Government to review the service conditions/wage structure of ED Agents. As per the recommendations of the Committee, the remuneration payable to ED Agents was termed as TRCA. For the purpose of payment of arrears, the pre-TRCA basic allowance was multiplied by a factor of 3.25 and the difference of amount was paid as arrears for the period from 01.01.1996 to 28.02.1998 and the TRCA was given effect from 01.03.1998. Basing on the workload of Extra Departmental male Carriers /Messengers/Runners, two time scales were prescribed i.e., Rs.1220-20-1600 for workload up to 3 hours 45 minutes and Rs.1545-25-2020 for the workload above 3 hours 45 minutes. It was also decided to fix allowances of ED Agents at minimum of the TRCA. However, in case, the allowance arrived at by multiplying pre TRCA basic allowance by factor of 3.25 is above the minimum of TRCA, the difference would be protected as personal allowance to be adjusted against future entitlements. 5. The allowances of respondents were initially fixed at the minimum of the second TRCA at Rs.1545/- by taking the protected allowances into account. Further, pursuant to the orders of the Directorate dated 11.09.2002, vide letter dated 21.01.2003 the TRCA of the Grameena Dak Sevaks was refixed on the basis of actual workload as per cycle beat. This resulted in reduction in the basic allowance. As a consequence, decision was also taken to recover the excess amount paid by applying pre revised fixation of the allowance payable under TRCA. 6. The respondents and several others challenged the order of re-fixation and recovery, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) at Hyderabad bench. On elaborate consideration of the respective submissions, the Tribunal upheld the decision to refix the pay and allowances. The Hon’ble Tribunal repelled the contention that there is discrimination in treating employees appointed prior to 01.11.1987 and after 01.11.1987 and the same is discriminatory and offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that it is permissible to the Government to create two categories of employees based on the cut off date. The Tribunal also upheld extension of different allowances based on the cut off date. 7. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that it is permissible to the Government to create two categories of employees based on the cut off date. The Tribunal also upheld extension of different allowances based on the cut off date. 7. Having said so, on the aspect of recovery of excess amount alleged to have been paid to the employees, the Tribunal directed that it is not just and equitable to recover the excess amount paid when there was no mis-representation by the employees and ordered not to affect any recovery. The instant writ petitions are filed by the Union of India, only against this portion of the order. The Court is informed that employees have not assailed the decision of the Tribunal, upholding the decision of the Government in re-fixing the allowances and fixing the cut off date of 01.11.1987 to apply two different kinds of allowances payable to the ED employees. 8. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the respondents are not legally entitled to higher allowances paid to them and having reviewed the wrong fixation of allowances, orders were passed revising the fixation. From the assessment of material available on record, it was noticed that due to wrong fixation of their allowances, they were paid excess amount, which amounts to undue enrichment and the State is entitled to recover the said amounts from the employees. She also contends that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court consistently, whenever wrong pay fixation is made and based on such wrong pay fixation, excess amount was paid, it is permissible for the State to recover the same. In support of the contention that employer is entitled to recover excess amount paid, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 and the judgment of Madras High Court in S. Mariappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 (4) LLN 496 . 9. In S. Mariappan’s case, employee was working as Panchayat Clerk and later promoted as Panchayat Secretary. The employee placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, wherein Consolidated Pay/ Honorarium/ Fixed Pay be allowed to increase revising the remuneration, subject to a minimum benefit of Rs.50/- per annum, after adjusting three instalments of the interim relief and employees were also to be paid arrears from 01.01.1996. The employee placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, wherein Consolidated Pay/ Honorarium/ Fixed Pay be allowed to increase revising the remuneration, subject to a minimum benefit of Rs.50/- per annum, after adjusting three instalments of the interim relief and employees were also to be paid arrears from 01.01.1996. Based on the said claim, benefit was extended and disbursed to the employees. Later, audit raised objection on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.191 was not applicable to the permanent employees of the Panchayat Raj Department, working in sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay. Having found that the benefits granted to the petitioner were erroneous and amounts to unjust enrichment, recovery was ordered. This recovery was challenged before High Court and High Court ordered recovery of excess amount by way of equal monthly instalments. 10. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the issue of recovery of excess amount paid on account of earlier wrong fixation of pay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reviewed the earlier decisions and codified the principles laid down in the earlier judgments. Paragraph No.18 of the said judgment 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, 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. (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.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no recovery is permissible if employee belongs to Class III and Class IV service (Group C and D); no recovery from the retired employees or employees due for retirement within one year. 12. In Clause (v) of paragraph 18, Supreme Court held that if the Court arrives at the conclusion that recovery 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, it is permissible for the Court to stop recovery. This paragraph recognizes the discretion of the Court/Tribunal to mould the relief in matters concerning recovery of excess paid amount to an employee. The only caveat is that such excess amount was not paid on account of misrepresentation or fraud played by the employee. 13. In the instant case, the employees are working in Class IV service of the Union of India and therefore, Clause-I is applicable. Further, some of the employees have retired from service and few others are on the verge of retirement. Therefore, Clause II is also applicable. 14. In Jagdev Singh, once again the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue of recovery of excess amount paid to an employee. In that case, the respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and promoted as Additional Civil Judge. Vide notification dated 28.09.2001, pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15200 was allowed as per the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules, 2001. Under these Rules, each Officer was required to submit an undertaking that any excess amount which may found to have been paid would be refunded to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due or otherwise. Accordingly, an undertaking was furnished by the respondent when his pay was fixed in the selection grade of Rs.14300-400-18000-300. 15. Under these Rules, each Officer was required to submit an undertaking that any excess amount which may found to have been paid would be refunded to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due or otherwise. Accordingly, an undertaking was furnished by the respondent when his pay was fixed in the selection grade of Rs.14300-400-18000-300. 15. Later, the first National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) recommendations were accepted by the State of Haryana also and revised pay scales were extended to the judicial officers. The revision of pay was undertaken to verify whether any excess payments were made. In the said process, letter for recovery of Rs. 1,22,003/- was served upon the respondent, alleging that this was the excess amount paid to him on account of a wrong pay fixation. On a challenge made before the High Court, the writ petition was allowed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and noted that employee gave an undertaking to effect recovery of any excess amount paid and once such undertaking is given it is no more permissible for the employee to oppose recovery of excess amount alleged to have been paid. In the peculiar facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Rafiq Masih and held that the principle enunciated is not attracted. 16. In the case on hand, petitioners herein do not allege that an undertaking was obtained from respondents when higher allowances were paid to them. Further, as noticed above, the propositions 1 and 2 of Rafiq Masih are attracted in the cases on hand. Therefore, the decision in Jagdev Singh does not come to the aid of petitioners. 17. Further, on due consideration of the respective submissions and having found that there was no mis-representation or fraud played by the employees and excess allowances were paid to the applicants by wrong assessment of their entitlement, the Tribunal ordered that alleged excess amount should not be recovered. In the peculiar facts of the case before the Tribunal, the Hon’ble Tribunal exercised sound discretion in ordering not to recover excess amount paid. 18. In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court does not act as an appellate Court against the decisions of the Tribunals constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 18. In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court does not act as an appellate Court against the decisions of the Tribunals constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. When discretion is exercised by duly constituted Administrative Tribunal, unless any perversity or glaring illegality is pointed out in the decision, this Court ordinarily should not interfere and upset the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. 19. Having regard to the principles codified in the Rafiq Masih, we are not inclined to interfere with the reasoned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.