ORDER : On 30.11.2015, the respondents issued an order for recovery of amount from the salary of the petitioner on account of alleged wrong fixation of his pay for the period 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015. This order was followed by a notice dated 07.12.2015 informing the petitioner that Rs.218067/- is to be recovered from him in compliance to office order dated 30.11.2015. These actions of the respondents have compelled the petitioner to institute the present petition seeking quashing of recovery order as well as the notice. 2. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material available on record, the following factual position of the case emerges:- 2(i) The petitioner was initially appointed against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (JBT) on ad-hoc basis. He joined as such on 26.09.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 fixed at Rs.1200/-. His services were regularized as JBT on 06.10.1993. He was promoted to the post of Language Teacher on 17.02.2000. The pay-scale was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the existing old scale of 1.1.1986 was accordingly revised. Petitioner’s pay scale was also revised from Rs.1200-2100 to Rs.4550-7220. Petitioner was granted bunching benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.4850/- by giving him two additional increments over and above the bunching benefits. 2(ii) In the year 2015, the respondents observed that petitioner’s basic pay as on 31.12.1995 was Rs.1420/- and on revision of pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 his pay was to be fixed at Rs.4550/- instead of Rs.4850/-. The respondents also took into consideration the Government letter dated 24.12.2010 that benefit of bunching increments shall not be admissible on the initial ad-hoc service. The respondents, therefore, passed an order on 30.11.2015 (part of Annexure P-1) re-fixing petitioner’s pay and also directing recovery in lumpsum of the excess amount paid to him due to wrong fixation of his pay for the period from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015. 2(iii) In pursuance to the order dated 30.11.2015, respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 07.12.2015 (Annexure A-1) directing him to pay an amount of Rs.218067/-. In the above backdrop of facts, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following substantial reliefs:- “A. Quash the impugned notice Annexure A-1 being arbitrary malafide and illegal. B. Direction be issued to the respondent department not to attach the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-1.” 3. In the above backdrop of facts, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following substantial reliefs:- “A. Quash the impugned notice Annexure A-1 being arbitrary malafide and illegal. B. Direction be issued to the respondent department not to attach the salary of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-1.” 3. In the present petition, the petitioner has not disputed that his pay was wrongly fixed by the respondents for the period in question. His only grievance in the instant petition is against the recovery of excess payment ordered by the respondents for the period in question. 4. During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate General placed on record instructions dated Nil June, 2022 to the effect that “petitioner Sh. Suresh Dutt after order dated 30.11.2015 was getting pay scale Rs.18350+4400 Grade Pay which is in terms of the entitlement of the petitioner to the post concerned at that relevant time.” 5. Observations In view of the pleadings of the parties, the only issue to be adjudicated is whether the respondents are entitled to effect recovery from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of his pay by them for the period 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015. 5(i). The issue involved is no longer res integra. Taking note of various precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court including the Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Government of India and Others (2006) 11 SCC 709 , Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475 , Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs State of Uttrakhand and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417 , State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 (2) and High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 , Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3145/2019 titled S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. alongwith connected matters decided on 24.03.2022, has drawn the following conclusions in para-35 of the judgment:- “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. (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 ClassI/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 gudielines 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.” It will also be appropriate to take note of a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered on 2.5.2022 in Civil Appeal No.7115/2010 titled Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Ors., holding that where the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. The relevant part from the judgment is extracted hereinafter:- “9. The relevant part from the judgment is extracted hereinafter:- “9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.” 5(ii). It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee working under the respondents. With effect from 30.11.2015, petitioner is being paid the salary as per his entitlement. The excess payment of Rs.218067/- has been made to him by the respondents on account of wrong fixation of his pay for a period in excess of five years. In fact, the period for which the recovery is now sought to be effected ranges from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015. It is a huge period of 19 years and 11 months. Recovery of excess payment on account of wrong fixation of petitioner’s pay for a period of about 20 years would be impermissible, iniquitous and harsh upon him. It is not the case of the respondents that wrong fixation of petitioner’s pay during the period in question was on account of any fraud or misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered in terms of conclusions drawn in Para-35 (iii), (v) & (vii) of the judgment in S.S. Chaudhary’s case (supra). Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III & Class-IV categories is impermissible even on the basis of their undertakings. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered in terms of conclusions drawn in Para-35 (iii), (v) & (vii) of the judgment in S.S. Chaudhary’s case (supra). Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III & Class-IV categories is impermissible even on the basis of their undertakings. Therefore, the so called readiness allegedly expressed by the petitioner in writing to the respondents on 27.11.2015 for returning the excess amount as mentioned in the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 is also of no help to the respondents. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. Order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure A-1) re-fixing petitioner’s pay-scale is quashed only to the extent it orders to effect recovery from the petitioner for the excess payment made to him on account of wrong fixation of his pay by the respondents for the period from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.2015. Annexure A-1, the recovery notice issued by the respondents on 07.12.2015 in compliance to the order dated 30.11.2015 is also quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.