JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned Central Government counsel for the petitioners. 2. There is no representation for the respondent Nos. 1 to 19. 3. This Writ Petition under article 226 of the constitution of India was filed by the petitioners challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (in short "Tribunal") in O.A.No.348 of 2012 passed on 02.08.2012. 4. The O.A. was filed by the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 19. They had challenged and prayed to set aside the recovery ordered by the 4th respondent therein/4th petitioner herein/Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhimavaram Division, on the ground of alleged excess amount paid to the applicants earlier, calculating the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) on the basis of cycle beat, commencing the recovery from the month of August 2011 @ Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) uniformly from all the applicants which also resulted in reduction of pay of the applicants (TRCA) with retrospective effect from 01.03.1998. They further prayed for direction not to reduce their pay and not to make consequential recoveries as also to refund the amounts already recovered from the month of August 2011, with all the consequential benefits. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 19 were working as Gramin Dak Sewaks (in short "GDS") officials in various places in Bhimavaram Division (West Godavari District). They were initially appointed as Extra Departmental Agents (later on called GDS Officials). They were working for decades and the remuneration/Time related continuity allowance, was being paid to them on the basis of actual workload calculated on the basis of foot-beat, basing on the orders of the Union of India rep. by the Director General, Posts, Department of Posts, New Delhi, that those appointed earlier to 01.11.1987 were to be paid according to the TRCA calculated on foot-beat basis. As per the instructions the TRCA of all the G.D.S., other than BPMs was fixed according to their actual workload on cycle norms with effect from 01.03.1998. Also for those, who were pre-01.11.1987 it was calculated on cycle beat norms. The TRCA of the GDSs was revised to II-Scale of TRCA and in view of revision, excess TRCA was found to have been paid to some GDSs during the period 01.03.1998 to 31.10.2003. 6. In Tamilnadu Postal Circle, on such issue of the excess amount, O.A.No.1011 of 2001 was allowed by CAT, Madras Bench. The TRCA of the GDSs was revised to II-Scale of TRCA and in view of revision, excess TRCA was found to have been paid to some GDSs during the period 01.03.1998 to 31.10.2003. 6. In Tamilnadu Postal Circle, on such issue of the excess amount, O.A.No.1011 of 2001 was allowed by CAT, Madras Bench. To maintain uniformity the Directorate vide letter No.14-16/2001-PAP dated 06/11.09.2002 directed to calculate TRCA as per cycle beat formula except for those in hilly areas and areas where beats are non-cycleable. Consequently, in the case of the applicants excess amounts of TRCA was found to be paid for the recovery of which in Bhimavaram Division also the order for recovery was passed. 7. Some other similarly situated GDS in Gudur (NL) division also filed O.A.No.398 of 2007 before the CAT, Hyderabad, which was also disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2008, upholding the reduction of TRCA but directing to refund the excess payments already recovered. The Union of India, challenging the order dated 31.01.2008 filed W.P.No.25675 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 06.07.2009, upholding the order of the CAT, Hyderabad and directing to refund the amounts already recovered. Accordingly, the amounts already recovered were refunded vide memo dated 06.11.2020. The respondent Nos. 1 to 19 requested for the same benefit to be extended to them but the petitioners, without issuing any show cause notice and without indicating the amount proposed to be recovered from their pay, commenced recovery from the month of August 2011. 8. The respondent Nos. 1 to 19 submitted that in the case of similarly situated GDS Officials, the CAT, Chennai held that the TRCA may be reduced based on correct beat formula, but the amounts already paid to the officials, when there was no misrepresentation by the employees, should not be recovered. 9. The O.A.No.348 of 2012 was disposed of by CAT, Hyderabad, granting the same relief to the respondent Nos. 2 to 19 herein as was granted to the similarly situated persons vide order dated 02.08.2012 which is as follows: "….8. In the result, the O.A. is disposed of that the respondents are not having any right to recover the excess payment made to the applicants and they are liable to refund the amounts recovered towards excess payment from the applicants herein. In the result, the O.A. is disposed of that the respondents are not having any right to recover the excess payment made to the applicants and they are liable to refund the amounts recovered towards excess payment from the applicants herein. This exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The other reliefs claimed by the applicants is disallowed 9. Thus O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs…." 10. Learned Central Government counsel for the petitioners submitted that the GDS render part time work not exceeding five hours per day. They were paid TRCA for the work rendered by them according to their work load, which is measured based on norms fixed in that regard. From 01.03.1998, the TRCA was introduced which brought the concept of enhancing the allowances of the GDS not merely on the basis of work load but also on the basis of the years of employment rendered. The same was calculated on two formulas 1) Foot Beat and 2) Cycle Beat. The workload assessed on foot beat formula is almost double to that assessed on cycle beat. Cycle beat formula was being applied to all Gramin Dak Sewaks who were appointed after 01.11.1987 and also for the GDS who were appointed prior to 01.11.1987 but who were not adversely affected after conversion of foot beat to cycle beat. The GDSs appointed prior to 01.11.1987 and who were adversely affected on account of conversion of foot beat into cycle beat would continue to have their allowances protected by assessing the workload only on foot beat basis. He further submitted that in the cases of some of the GDSs appointed prior to 01.11.1987 when finalizing their TRCA, error was committed in certain postal divisions. Such discrepancies came to light later on, during the course of Audit & other inspections and corrective action was taken by some postal divisions by re- fixing the TRCA to those GDSs. In view of the revision of TRCA, excess paid TRCA was found to have been paid to some of the GDS during the period from 01.03.1998 to 31.10.2003 and in view thereof an order was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhimavaram Division, for recovery of the excess amounts paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 as well. 1 to 19 as well. He submitted that the public money being involved the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 12. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 13. This Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, granted interim order on 06.09.2013, which reads as follows: "…Pending further orders, amount which are already recovered, need not be paid back to the respondents." 14. The only point for consideration is if the excess paid is liable to be refunded or recovered and if not, the amount already recovered is liable to be refunded to the respondents. 15. On our specific query, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no allegation of any fault on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 19, in fixation of TRCA or for payment of the excess amount to them. There is also no averment in the Writ Petition to that affect that, in the fixation of TRCA, the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 were at fault or played any role or made any misrepresentation. 16. On the issue, as involved, law has been well settled. 17. Learned Central Government Counsel placed much emphasis in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others (supra) para-14 to contend that the public money is involved and as such the excess paid can be recovered. Paragraph No.14 is as under: "…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 bonafide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government Officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favoritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee…." 18. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bonafide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government Officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favoritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee…." 18. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held that the Court must concern with the excess payment of public money which is often described as 'taxpayers money' and belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. It further observed that the question to be asked is whether the excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the 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 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 the 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. 19. However, after so observing, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) held that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475 and in Col. B. J. Akkara v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709 , the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered. 20. The paragraph No.15 reads as under: "…We are therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir Case (2nd supra) and in Col.B.J.Akkara(retd.) case (3rd supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered…" 21. So, from the aforesaid judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) it is clear that, except in the exceptional categories of cases, as in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Col. So, from the aforesaid judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) it is clear that, except in the exceptional categories of cases, as in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Col. B. J. Akkara (supra), the excess payment can always be recovered. Consequently, in exceptional categories of case, the same cannot be recovered. 22. In Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) the excess amount had been paid to the teachers not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants therein also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. In the said case the Finance Department 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 teachers could not be held responsible. 23. In Col. B. J. Akkara (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under in Para Nos. 27 to 29: "Re: Question (iv) 27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [ (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [ (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [ (1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]): (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) 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. 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 caused if recovery is implemented. 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 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. 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made." 24. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made." 24. Later on, in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2014) 8 SCC 892 the Hon'ble Apex Court being of the view that there was an apparent difference of views expressed, on the one hand in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and on the other hand in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), made a reference to the Larger Bench. 25. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883 the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the reference was unnecessary. It was observed that in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) while observing that the petitioners therein were not entitled to the higher pay scales, had come to the conclusion that since the amount had already been paid to those petitioners, for no fault of theirs, the said amount shall not be recovered by the Union of India. In Sahib Ram (supra) also although the appellant therein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the principal granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary on the revised pay scale. That was not on account of misrepresentation made by the appellant therein but by a mistake committed by the principal. In that fact situation, the amount already paid to the appellant was directed not to be recovered. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) observed that the observations made in those cases not to recover the excess amount paid was in the exercise of extraordinary powers of the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which vest the power in the Supreme Court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice. 26. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra-7) further observed that, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), the issue was whether the appellant therein could retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part, and after taking into consideration the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that even if by mistake of the employer the amount was paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovered that the excess payment was made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra-7) held that the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) was in no way in conflict with the observations made in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Sahib Ram (supra). The decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) was under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in laying down the law. 27. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 , i.e., the judgment after the matter was sent back to the concerned Benches pursuant to the Order in reference in Rafiq Masih (supra-7), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery made by the employer in excess of their entitlement. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra-8) summarized in para-18, the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, were held to be impermissible in law: "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. (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." 29. Recently, in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that an attempt to recover the excess increments after passage of ten years of retirement was unjustified. In the said case, it was also not contended that on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant therein, the excess amount was paid. In fact, the case of the respondents therein was that the excess payment was made due to mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules, which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. 30. Paragraphs - 14 & 15 of Thomas Daniel (supra) read as under: "14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. 15. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified." 31. We would see whether the present case falls within the exceptions as pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Col. B. J. Akkara (supra) or/and Rafiq Masih (supra-8) and then whether the recovery of excess payment due to wrong or irregular pay fixation can or cannot be recovered. 32. We would see whether the present case falls within the exceptions as pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Col. B. J. Akkara (supra) or/and Rafiq Masih (supra-8) and then whether the recovery of excess payment due to wrong or irregular pay fixation can or cannot be recovered. 32. In the present case also, the case of the Union of India, the petitioner, is that the excess payment was made due to fixation of TRCA on incorrect criteria of cycle-beat/foot-beat basis for the period in question. The mistake was made on their part. We find that the undisputed facts are that the payment of the excess amount was made due to incorrect application of the criteria i.e., foot-beat/cycle-beat or vice-versa in fixation of TRCA for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS). Such error or mistake was committed by the authorities. That was done in the year 1998/1999. The order for recovery and memo to that effect was issued to all the post masters in Bhimavaram Division to which the present respondents belonged, in the year 2010. This is after more than 10 years. Respondent No.7 by that time had either retired or was in the verge of retirement on attaining age of superannuation in consideration of the age, as mentioned in O.A. The respondents were also not given any show cause notice before such recovery. 33. We are of the view that the case of the present respondents is covered and falls within the instances of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), Col. B. J. Akkara (supra) and in clause (iii) of para-18 of Rafiq Masih (supra-8), if not in other clauses. We are of the further view that at this stage, it would be iniquitous or harsh to allow the petitioners to recover the excess payment from the respondents, who must be close to or nearing the age of 70 years and must have retired from service. We are of the further view that at this stage, it would be iniquitous or harsh to allow the petitioners to recover the excess payment from the respondents, who must be close to or nearing the age of 70 years and must have retired from service. Keeping in view that the recovery was being made after more than 5 years (about 10 years) by passing the order/memo of recovery, when they were not at fault nor misrepresented in fixation of TRCA, which was erroneously fixed in excess to their entitlement as per the petitioner's case, and even knowledge that they were receiving the payment in excess has not been imputed to them, no fault can be found in the Order of the Tribunal and particularly when the Tribunal has not directed not to re-fix as per the correct criteria. 34. In the cases of similarly situated persons the CAT, Madras and CAT, Hyderabad, directed to refund the recovered amount while maintaining fixation of correct TRCA. The same has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of the present respondents as well. 35. The excess amounts paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 19, in our view, cannot be recovered and the amount which has been recovered from them deserves to be refunded, as in the case of persons similarly situated also such orders were passed. 36. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal directing the petitioners not to recover the excess payment and to refund the amount which was recovered towards excess payment to the respondents/applicants. The re- fixation of TRCA as per correct norms may be done but what has been paid cannot be recovered and the recovery that has been made being contrary to settled principles of law, such recovered amount shall be refunded to the respondents in terms of the Order of the Tribunal. 37. We do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 38. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 39. The petitioners shall comply with the order of the Tribunal, as affirmed, within a period of one month. The amount recovered from the respondents, shall be refunded to them within the same period. 40. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.