JUDGMENT : (D. K. SINGH, J.) The petitioner entered into service as a leave substitute, H.S.A (Natural Science) w.e.f 14.09.1998 in Mambaram Higher Secondary School. She was taken on regular service w.e.f 05.06.2022. During the academic year 2010-2011, a post of H.S.A (Natural Science) was reduced due to the deduction of effective strength, and the petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from 14.07.2010. On the date of retrenchment, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.19740/-. 2. Thereafter, a Teachers’ package was introduced, and the petitioner was also included in the package and posted to BRC as CRC Co-ordinator in the year 2012. After two years, the post of H.S.A (Natural Science) was restored in the school, and the petitioner was sent back to the said school vide the order dated 23.09.2014 and the petitioner’s salary was fixed at Rs.20740/-. 3. An audit objection was made regarding the payment of Rs.20740/- to the petitioner, as her salary at the time of retrenchment was only Rs.19740/-. Therefore, vide the impugned order dated 06.10.2024, the petitioner has been issued a notice for recovery of the excess amount paid to her. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.20740/- as additional CRC co-ordinator and therefore her salary was fixed at Rs.20740/- after the post of H.S.A (Natural Science) was restored and she was sent back to the school. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned notice in Ext.P5 is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 5.On the other hand, Mr. Binoy Davis, the learned Government Pleader submits that as per Rule 52 of Chapter 14A of the Kerala Education Act & Rules (KER), after retrenchment on re-appointment in the same school or in another school under the same management or a different management, a teacher would get same pay as he/ she was getting at the time of retrenchment. 6. At the time of retrenchment, the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.19740/-. Therefore, on re-appointment w.e.f. 23.09.2014 in the same school on restoration of the post of H.S.A (Natural Science), she was entitled to a salary of Rs . 19740/- and not Rs.20740/-. He therefore submits that neither the notice is arbitrary nor illegal, but it is as per rule 52 of the aforesaid rules, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19740/- and not Rs.20740/-. He therefore submits that neither the notice is arbitrary nor illegal, but it is as per rule 52 of the aforesaid rules, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 8.The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was retrenched in the year 2010-2011, on account of the increase of effective strength of the post of H.S.A (Natural Science) in her school and said post was restored, and the petitioner was re-appointed w.e.f 23.09.2014. As per Rule 52 of Chapter 14A, the petitioner was entitled to get the payment of Rs.19740/-, which was the last drawn pay of the petitioner before retrenchment. Rule 52 of Chapter 14A of KER would read as under:- “52. (1)112[XXX] Teachers who are relieved on account of any reduction in the number of posts under orders of the department shall on reappointment in the same school or in another school under the same management or a different management start on the same pay as they were getting at the time of relief, whether the new appointment is permanent or not 113[XXX]]. 114[(2)115[XXX] Teachers thrown out from service due to the withdrawal of recognition of schools by the Department shall also be eligible to draw the pay which they were getting at the time of withdrawal of recognition of the school on re-appointment in another school 116[XXX]].” 9.The plain reading of the provision of Rule 52 would suggest that there is a protection of salary to a returning teacher on reappointment after retrenchment, who is entitled to pay protection of his /her last drawn salary. 10.In the present case, the petitioner was paid Rs.20740/- which is Rs.1000/- more than the last drawn salary of the petitioner before retrenchment. In view of Rule 52, the petitioner was not entitled for Rs.20740/-. However, this mistake has been noticed only in the year 2023 for which the recovery notice was issued on 06.10.2023. 11.In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih vs State of Punjab (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the petitioner being a Class-III employee, no such recovery and wrong fixation of pay is to be effected, and therefore, the said recovery notice to that extent is set aside. 11.In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih vs State of Punjab (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the petitioner being a Class-III employee, no such recovery and wrong fixation of pay is to be effected, and therefore, the said recovery notice to that extent is set aside. However, despite the said notice dated 06.10.2023, the petitioner has continued to draw the salary of Rs. 20740/-, pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. The orders of this court cannot cause prejudice to a party to the litigation. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover any excess amount paid to the petitioner over and above Rs.19740/- w.e.f 06.10.2023. The said recovery may be effected from the monthly salary of the petitioner, and it should not be more than Rs.1000/- per month, till the excess amount paid w.e.f 06.10.2023 is recovered. It is made clear that in terms of Rule 52, the petitioner is entitled to a salary of Rs.19740/- w.e.f 06.10.2023, with admissible revision and allowances. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.