ORDER : 1. The petitioners are either serving, retired government servants or their successors and since the recovery has been ordered to be effected from them or their predecessors, they have approached this Court for quashing of such recoveries. 2. When these cases were taken up for hearing, the parties were ad idem that before proceeding to decide each case individually, the Court should lay down certain broad guidelines under which recoveries by the employers would be permissible/impermissible in law. 3. The principles for allowing recovery of over payments are well laid down through series of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The earlier view that such recoveries should not be permitted unless over payment can be attributed to fraud or misrepresentation on part of the employee, has undergone major changes. 4. In case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , it was observed as under: “28. Such relief, restraining recovery back 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 caused 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 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.” 5. Later in case of Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “59. 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.” 5. Later in case of Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - 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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-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 appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 6. Both these decisions in cases of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), were well considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others vs. State of Uttrakahand and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein it was observed as under: “14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered. 16. The appellants in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However, we order the excess payment made be recovered from the appellant’s salary in twelve equal monthly installments starting from October 2012.” 7. The entire case law was reviewed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles and guidelines: 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. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from 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. 8. However, it needs to be noticed that an issue regarding recovery of excess amount from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year, again came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 , wherein, it was held that the principle that recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of order of recovery is impermissible is inapplicable where officer to whom payment was made in first instance was clearly put on notice that excess payment was found to have been made would be required to be refunded. 9. It is apt to quote relevant observations as contained in Paras 10 to 12 of the judgment, which reads as under: “10. 9. It is apt to quote relevant observations as contained in Paras 10 to 12 of the judgment, which reads as under: “10. In State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 11 The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 12 For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners led by Mr. Y.P.S. Daulta, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Mr. V.D. Khidta, Mr. Peeyush Verma, Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. K.B. Khajuria and Mr. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners led by Mr. Y.P.S. Daulta, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Mr. V.D. Khidta, Mr. Peeyush Verma, Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. K.B. Khajuria and Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, learned Advocates, would argue that various High Courts have interpreted both the judgments i.e. Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh cases (supra) and have held that even in case of Class-III and IV employees, despite undertaking, recoveries cannot be effected solely on the strength of Jagdev Singh case (supra). 11. On the other hand, learned Advocate General would argue that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra), with all due respect, does not lay down the correct law, as it has failed to take into consideration the judgment rendered by three Hon’ble Judges in the reference made to it. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments referred here-in-above. 12. It would be evident from the various judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time that the facts and circumstances of every case have to be examined and appreciated on their own merit to discern whether the re- fixation and recovery in question was warranted or justified. Exceptional circumstances that call for complete justice must be taken note of while deciding the fate of the action initiated. The court must strike or balance to ensure and seek that whether the re-fixation and recovery ordered is iniquitous or unfair on the one hand or whether the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount is greater. It has to be seen as to whether the recovery has a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee. In deciding so, the court must also bear in mind that the concerned employee would normally not have any vested right in the excess amount received by him. 13. It would further be noticed that the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) are not rigid and rather flexible and, therefore, also all the cases pertaining to recovery have to be decided on their own facts and circumstances. 14. 13. It would further be noticed that the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) are not rigid and rather flexible and, therefore, also all the cases pertaining to recovery have to be decided on their own facts and circumstances. 14. Now, coming to the next question as to whether even in the case of undertakings given by Class-III and Class-IV employees, recovery can be effected solely on the strength of Jagdev Singh’s case (supra), the answer is clearly in negative. 15. Firstly, the undertaking given by the respondent in Jagdev Singh’s case (supra), while opting for the revised pay-scale, was in pursuance of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules, 2001. Since the respondent had submitted an undertaking under the said Rules that he would refund to the Government any amount paid to him in excess either by adjustment against future payment due or otherwise, he was held to be bound by such undertaking. 16. Additionally, the respondent had not retired from service on superannuation but he was compulsorily retired from service. Also, the respondent being a judicial officer was not holding a Class-III/Group-C post on the date he was compulsorily retired. It is in such circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the respondent was bound by the undertaking given by him and that the Government was justified in its action of seeking to recover excess payment that was made. 17. There is yet another reason for us to hold that the ratio in Jagdev Singh’s case (supra) has no applicability because of situations (i) and (iii) forming part of paragraph-18 of Rafiq Masih (supra). Situation (i) clearly bars recovery from employees belonging to Class-III/Group-C service. Further, situation (iii) bars recovery from employees when excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued. 18. Now, a very ardous situation would arise that even though recoveries from employees belonging to Class-III/Group-C cannot be made in terms of situation (i) (supra) while in service, such recovery could be made from the retired Class-III/Group-C employees who have either retired or are due for retirement within one year of the order of recovery. 18. Now, a very ardous situation would arise that even though recoveries from employees belonging to Class-III/Group-C cannot be made in terms of situation (i) (supra) while in service, such recovery could be made from the retired Class-III/Group-C employees who have either retired or are due for retirement within one year of the order of recovery. It would lead us to a situation that although there could be a declaration given by a Class-III/Group-C employee while in service that excess payment could be recovered from him from future salary to be paid to him, which cannot be recovered in terms of situation (i), but in terms of situation (ii), as interpreted in Jagdev Singh’s case (supra) recovery could be effected from his retirement benefits after the relationship of employer-employee ceases to subsist. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) has consciously carved out situation (v) (supra), proceeding on the premise that recovery from retirement benefits, by asking the retired employee to refund excess amount, if any, received by him, if found to be iniquitous and arbitrary and thereby causing hardship, such step ought to be avoided. 20. Once this be the reason, it would be far-fetched to state that what the employer (State) cannot resort to against Class-III/Group-C employee while he is in service, such employer would be empowered to do so after retirement of the Class- III/Group-C employee. Obviously, if accepted, the same would amount to a distorted interpretation of the situations in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra), which has to be eschewed. 21. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the observations made in para-11 of the Jagdev Singh’s case (supra) must be confined to Class-I/Group-A and Class-II/Group- B officers. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold that despite undertaking given by Class-III/Group-C and Class-IV/Group-D employee, recovery cannot be effected solely on the strength of Jagdev Singh’s case (supra). 22. As regards the submissions made by learned Advocate General, Rafiq Masih does not lay down correct law as it was in conflict of Rafiq Masih, we are not inclined to accept this submission in view of the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which have been taken note of Rafiq Masih. 23. 22. As regards the submissions made by learned Advocate General, Rafiq Masih does not lay down correct law as it was in conflict of Rafiq Masih, we are not inclined to accept this submission in view of the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which have been taken note of Rafiq Masih. 23. We may, however, give a brief recapitulation of all the judgments, which were rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (a) Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 (b) Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18 (c) Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 (d) Syed Abdul Qadir and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 (e) State of Bihar vs. Pandy Jagdishwar Prasad, (2009) 3 SCC 117 (f) Yogeshwar Prasad and Others vs. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 323 24. In Shaym Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the revision was erroneous but since the recovery and refixation was after eleven years from the original fixation of pay, the sudden reduction of pay scale and that too, after many years, would not only affect the employees financially, but their seniority as well. They thus held that it would not be just or proper to recover the excess amount paid. 25. In Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, the employees therein had not possessed the required education qualifications for the relaxation that had been granted to them. However, the relaxation having been granted and salary having been paid based on such regularisation, it was concluded that excess payment should not be recovered applying the principles of equal pay for equal work. 26. Then again, three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra) reiterated the same opinion as in the case of Col. B.J. Akkara, noting, as an additional factor, that the teachers from whom recovery was sought to be made had either retired or were on the verge of retirement. 27. 26. Then again, three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra) reiterated the same opinion as in the case of Col. B.J. Akkara, noting, as an additional factor, that the teachers from whom recovery was sought to be made had either retired or were on the verge of retirement. 27. In Yogeshwar Prasad and Others vs. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 323 , the Bench had opined that recovery should not be resorted to unless it was a case of misrepresentation or fraud by the employee concerned. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Col. B.J. Akkara (supra), were extracted to the effect that the restraint placed on recovery has its basis on the exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from such hardship as will be caused by the recovery and not for the reason that the court believes that the employees have any vested right to the amounts that they have been paid in excess. Thus, the sine qua non for such recovery is the hardship caused to the employee and no other reason. 28. The aforesaid cases were distinguished in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others vs. State of Uttrakhand and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 , whereas the Hon’ble Bench noticing that the relief granted as against recovery had been in the peculiar circumstances of those cases, such as prejudice or the hardship that would be caused to those employees, either by reason of the long distance of time between the refixation and recovery or they having retired or being imminent for retirement. 29. Since those circumstances did not arise in Uniyal’s case, the Bench was not inclined to follow their ratio. They were concerned with the deployment of public money in an improper or inappropriate manner. This question being uppermost in their minds, they concluded that the categories of cases cited before them involved exceptional circumstances but could not be taken as the norm. 30. The conclusion was that recovery, once made, of amounts admittedly erroneously paid to an employee, must be confirmed except if the recovery fell within the category of exceptional circumstances as enumerated above. In that case, the order of recovery was confirmed. 31. 30. The conclusion was that recovery, once made, of amounts admittedly erroneously paid to an employee, must be confirmed except if the recovery fell within the category of exceptional circumstances as enumerated above. In that case, the order of recovery was confirmed. 31. Since there appeared to be a cleavage of opinion between the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Benches in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma and Sahib Ram on the one hand, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal on the other, the question of recovery of excess payments came to be referred to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising three judges. 32. By a decision dated 18.12.2014, the question was answered by the larger Bench, that held that there was really no dichotomy at all as contemplated. The matters were thus returned holding that there was no question of law to be decided. The Bench noted that in Chandi Prasad Uniyal’s case, the relief had been granted in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, whereas in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma and Sahib Ram, the relief had been granted in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution. 33. The scope and ambit of the two judgments was thus entirely different and this is what the Hon’ble Bench says in conclusion at paragraphs 8 to 14: “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 pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee 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. 9. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions. In such a situation, the employee’s right would outbalance and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. 9. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality, can be found in Articles 14 to 18, contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, dealing with “Fundamental Rights.” These Articles of the Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and equal protection of the laws; also disallow, discrimination with the object of achieving equality, in matters of employment; abolish untouchability, to upgrade the social status of an ostracized section of the society and extinguish titles, to scale down the status of a section of the society, with such appellations. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality, can also be found in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, dealing with the “Directive Principles of State Policy.” These Articles of the Constitution of India contain a mandate to the State requiring it to assure a social order providing justice - social, economic and political, by inter-alia minimizing monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood, and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections. 10. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameters of the realm of an action of recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations of the State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. For the above determination, we shall refer to some precedents of this Court wherein the question of recovery of the excess amount paid to employees, came up for consideration and this Court disallowed the same. These are situations, in which High Courts all the country, repeatedly and regularly set aside orders of recovery made on the expressed parameters. 12. Reference may first of all be made to the decision in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , wherein this Court recorded the following observation in paragraph 58: “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. [See: Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416 , V. Ganga Ram vs. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139 , Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 11 SCC 492 , Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB vs. Bijay Bahadur].” (Emphasis supplied) 13. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 11 SCC 492 , Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB vs. Bijay Bahadur].” (Emphasis supplied) 13. First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this Court in its judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra) recognized, that the issue of recovery revolved on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of W.P. (MD) No. 669 of 2018 the action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded, that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family. Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their medical requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on the above consideration, we are of the view, that if the mistake of making a wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the same. However, if the payment is made for a period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee. 14. However, if the payment is made for a period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee. 14. In this context, reference may also be made to the decision rendered by this Court in Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , wherein this Court observed as under: “11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same.” 34. It was after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih laid down guidelines relating to recovery in Para-18 of its judgment (supra). Thus, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that Rafiq Masih does not lay down correct law. 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from 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. (vi) Recovery on the basis of undertaking from the employees essentially has to be confined to Class- I/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but even then, the Court may be required to see whether the recovery would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. (vii) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV even on the basis of undertaking is impermissible. (viii) The aforesaid categories of cases are by way of illustration and it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give any exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases. Therefore, each of such cases would be required to be decided on its own merit. 36. Thus, it would be clear that no inflexible rules regarding the recovery can be culled out and each case will have to be decided on its own merit keeping in view the broad guidelines as mentioned above. 37. List all these cases for hearing before the Division Bench on 18.04.2022.