ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner was appointed as attender/process server in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service by order dated 12.09.2006 and posted as attender in II Additional Junior Civil Judges Court, Bhimavaram, and presently, he is working on deputation as Record Assistant in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. 3. The case of the petitioner is that under the A.P. Last Grade Service Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 565 GA (Service-B) Department, dated 24.10.1992, the posts of attender and process server were under the same category i.e. Category (2). Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 50 dated 23.04.2009 in pursuance of the recommendations of Hon'ble Justice Jagannadha Shetty Commission, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. By the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 50, dated 23.04.2009, Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 were amended and the process servers were placed at S. No. 11 and attenders/jamedars at S. No. 12, thereby, the same were placed in separate categories. As per the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 50, 50% of the posts of process server are to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of attenders/jamedars and 50% by direct recruitment. 4. It is further pleaded that employees are entitled to Ad-hoc Promotion Post Scale (APPS) under Automatic Advancement Scheme after completion of 6/12/18/24 years of service. When proposals were submitted by the Senior Superintendent, Central Nazarat, District Court, Eluru for sanction of Automatic' Advancement Scheme by appointing the petitioner in Special Ad-hoc Promotion Post-1A (SAPP-1A) on completion of 12 years of service, respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 28.09.2020 recording that the pay of the petitioner was fixed erroneously in the cadre of attender at the time of implementation of Hon'ble Justice Jagannadha Shetty Commission with effect from 18.09.2006 as his pay was fixed at Rs. 4,595/- w.e.f. 18.09.2006 in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4595-10285 (assigned to process server) instead of Rs. 3,850/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 3850-8600 (assigned to attender). By the said order dated 28.09.2020, the excess amount of Rs. 4,595/- w.e.f. 18.09.2006 in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4595-10285 (assigned to process server) instead of Rs. 3,850/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 3850-8600 (assigned to attender). By the said order dated 28.09.2020, the excess amount of Rs. 5,45,531/- drawn by the petitioner, was directed to be paid by the petitioner to the Government Account on or before 31.10.2020 so as to enable the office to take further steps in the matter of sanction of SAPP-1A under Automatic Advancement Scheme. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at fault for fixation of his pay scale. He submits that since at the time of his appointment, posts of attender and process server were under the same category, no question would arise for fixation of pay in the post of attender retrospectively with effect from the date of his appointment. He, however, concedes that the pay of the petitioner has to be fixed with effect from 23.04.2009. It is further contended that direction to refund the excess amount is impermissible in law and he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 : 2015 (2) ALT 7.1 (DN SC). 6. Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, submits that fixation of pay was not correct and respondent No. 2 was justified in directing recovery from the petitioner. 7. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent No. 2 admitted that by G.O.Ms. No. 50, dated 23.04.2009, the posts of process servers and attenders were separated for the first time. It is also stated that though common proceedings were issued, some candidates were appointed to the posts of process servers and some candidates were appointed as attenders. It is also admitted that higher pay scales were assigned to process servers only from 23.04.2009. 8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pay scale of the petitioner cannot be fixed retrospectively with effect from his date of appointment as attender. However, from 23.04.2009, his pay scale has to be fixed. 9. In the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra), at Para-18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows: “18. However, from 23.04.2009, his pay scale has to be fixed. 9. In the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra), at Para-18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows: “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.” 10. The petitioner is in Class IV service, as admitted by Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao. In Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically laid down that recovery from an employee belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service) is impermissible. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 so far as it relates to directing recovery of amount from the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are, however, at liberty to re-fix the pay of the petitioner with effect from 23.04.2009. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.