JUDGMENT : Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 16.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.13687 & 12715 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeals have been filed. 3. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-National Institute of Technology, Sri A.Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent in W.A.No.1278 of 2024, Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024, and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3 in both the writ appeals. 4. It is the case of the appellants that initially, the respondents were appointed as Physical Directors and thereafter, they were promoted as Physical Directors (Selection Grade) and thereafter, they were re-designated as Associate Professors of Physical Education with effect from 01.01.2006 vide proceedings dated 25.01.2016. However, they were erroneously granted one increment whereas the persons who have completed six months of service alone are entitled to be re-designated as Associate Professors and the respondents were re-designated as Associate Professors erroneously with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.04.2006 and they were erroneously given senior scale grade pay of Rs.8,000/- with effect from 01.04.2003 and on promotion, given grade pay of Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.04.2006. Thereafter, it has come to the notice of the appellants that one extra increment was disbursed to the contesting respondents only when an audit was conducted. The Director General of Audit submitted his report on 04.04.2022 bringing it to the notice of the appellants that the appellants have erroneously paid excess amount to the contesting respondents for the period from 01.01.2006 to 10.08.2022. Hence, the appellants have revised the pay scales of the contesting respondents vide proceedings dated 10.08.2022. However, the excess amount paid to the contesting respondents for the period from 01.01.2006 to 10.08.2022 was not recovered in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (white Washer) , [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ] 4.1 Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings dated 10.08.2022, the contesting respondents have submitted representations to the Grievance Committee. As the contesting respondents have submitted representations before the Grievance Committee, the appellants could not recover the excess amount from the respondents and only after redressal of grievance of the respondents by the Grievance Committee, the appellants have issued final recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024, wherein a decision was taken to recover the excess amount paid to the contesting respondents from 10.08.2022 till 25.04.2024. 5. Aggrieved by the said recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024, the contesting respondents have approached this Court by filing subject W.P.Nos.12715 and 13687 of 2024. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, learned Single Judge vide common order dated 06.09.2024 allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the recovery proceedings. Hence, the present writ appeals. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (white Washer)’s case (supra), but the said judgment has no application to the instant case. The appellants have not recovered any amounts from the contesting respondents for the period from 01.01.2006 to 10.08.2022. When the appellants are taking steps to recover the amounts from the date of recovery proceedings dated 10.08.2022, learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petitions. Moreover, the contesting respondents have admitted that they were promoted as Associate Professors only with effect from 01.04.2006, as such, the question of extending one increment prior to 01.04.2006 does not arise. 6.1 Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions with an observation that the appellants are recovering the amounts from the contesting respondents with effect from 01.04.2006, which is totally incorrect as the appellants are taking steps to recover the amount only from 10.8.2022 i.e., the date on which the revised pay scales were issued to the contesting respondents as the contesting respondents have approached the Grievance Committee. The appellants have not recovered the amounts till the grievance of the respondents was resolved by the Grievance Committee and after final decision of the Grievance Committee, the appellants have issued revised recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024. The appellants have not recovered the amounts till the grievance of the respondents was resolved by the Grievance Committee and after final decision of the Grievance Committee, the appellants have issued revised recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024. 6.2 Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the appellants have issued recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024 in respect of 19 employees and if the recovery proceedings are set aside in respect of the respondents, then 17 other employees would approach this Court and seek the same relief, which would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellants. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeals by setting aside the common order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ appeals. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the writ appeals had contended that the contesting respondents were re-designated as Associate Professors vide proceedings dated 25.01.2016 with effect from 01.01.2006 and the contesting respondents were re-designated as Associate Professors only after completion of six months of service. Therefore, the question of recovering the excess amount from the contesting respondents does not arise. 7.1 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.No.1278 of 2024 had contended that the respondent was not given any opportunity by the Director General of Audit (Central) before submission of his report. A perusal of the audit report dated 04.04.2022 would make it clear that the audit was dealt with in respect of Dr. N.Selvaraj, Dr. I.Ashok Kumar Reddy, Dr. S.K.I.V.Sai Prasad and Dr. P.Madhusudan Reddy, whereas the case of the respondent was not even considered by the Director General of Audit (Central) while submitting his report nor any opportunity was given. The entire audit report was submitted behind the back of the respondent. Therefore, the audit report has no relevance when it comes to the case of the respondent in W.A.No.1278 of 2024. 7.2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024 had contended that the case of the respondent was examined by the very same Director General of Audit (Central), but the appellants have not taken into account the subsequent audit report dated 21.11.2022. 7.2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024 had contended that the case of the respondent was examined by the very same Director General of Audit (Central), but the appellants have not taken into account the subsequent audit report dated 21.11.2022. 7.3 Learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that the appellants are contending that the said revised audit dated 21.11.2022 is the outcome of the mis-representation submitted by the respondent, but the appellants have not taken any steps to see that the audit report dated 21.11.2022 is recalled nor cancelled and in the absence of the same, the impugned recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024 is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal. The recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024 were passed without looking into the revised audit report dated 21.11.2022. Learned counsel had further contended that the respondents have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024 and hence, the question of recovering the amounts from the respondents does not arise in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (white Washer)’s case (supra). Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petitions in favour of the respondents. There are no merits in the writ appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the revised audit report dated 21.11.2022 was issued based upon a mis-representation submitted by the respondents. Therefore, the appellants were justified in ignoring the audit report dated 21.11.2022. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024 had relied upon the proceedings dated 07.06.2023 issued by the Minutes of the Meeting of Committee Constituted for Pay Fixation Review and Grievance Redressal. As per the said proceedings, decision was taken by the Committee to drop the recovery proceedings against the respondent. But, this fact was not considered by the appellants while issuing the final recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. As per the said proceedings, decision was taken by the Committee to drop the recovery proceedings against the respondent. But, this fact was not considered by the appellants while issuing the final recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the appellants have initially extended the increments to the contesting respondents consequent upon their re-designation to the post of Associate Professors with effect from 01.01.2006 and the same was being continued upto 10.08.2022 and only on 10.08.2022, the respondents’ pay scales were revised based upon the audit report dated 04.04.2022. As far as the audit report dated 04.04.2022 is concerned, the said report was submitted behind the back of the respondent in W.A.1278 of 2024. Therefore, the said report was submitted without giving any opportunity to the respondent in W.A.No.1278 of 2024. In respect of the respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024, the respondent has submitted a representation to the Director General of Audit (Central) and based upon the representation submitted by the respondent, the Director General of Audit (Central) submitted his revised report on 21.11.2022, wherein a decision was taken to drop the recovery proceedings against the respondent. 10.1 Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that if the audit report dated 21.11.2022 is based upon the misrepresentation submitted by the contesting respondents, then the appellants ought to have taken steps to see that the revised audit report dated 21.11.2022 is cancelled or recalled. When the revised audit report is starring at the appellants, the appellants could not have taken steps to recover the amounts from the contesting respondents. Further, a perusal of the proceedings dated 07.06.2023 also makes it clear that the committee has taken a decision to drop the recovery proceedings against the respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024. Therefore, the final recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024 were issued without looking into the revised audit report dated 21.11.2022 nor on the decision of a committee constituted for redressal of grievance of the respondent vide proceedings dated 07.06.2023. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.