ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 4 th respondent herein pertaining to his order vide GES.3/23893/2014 dated 14.10.2014 and the consequential order vide A1/29505/2014 dated 21.04.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner herein as per the scale fixed by the 4 th respondent by its proceedings vide GES.2/5832/2013 dated 08.05.2013. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the writ petitioner had written Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission examination for the post of Typist, consequent to the notification issued on 27.04.2012. This is a Group IV category. He appeared on 07.07.2012 and the results were announced on 08.10.2012. The petitioner was called for certificate verification by communication dated 27.11.2012. The petitioner was then alloted to the District Court at Dindigul under the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service during counseling held on 14.12.2012. But thereafter, he was not granted any posting. He then received a communication on 26.03.2013, informing that more number of candidates have been allotted to the District Court at Dindigul and therefore he had been reallotted to the Agricultural Department. 3. A further communication was issued on 12.04.2013 in this regard. He then joined duty on 29.04.2013. In the communication dated 12.04.2013, he had been directed to join duty on or before 30.04.2013. The petitioner had joined duty on 29.04.2013. At that time, his pay had been fixed at Rs.8060/- in the pay scale of Rs.5,200 – Rs.22,100 with Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-. This was effective from the date of joining namely 29.04.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was also granted higher start of pay at two stages above the minimum scale in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.321 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 02.07.1988. The 4 th respondent however claimed that the said pay fixation was granted as if the petitioner had joined on 01.04.2013 and therefore had directed for recovery of excess pay which had been allegedly drawn by the petitioner with effect from 23.07.2013. Questioning this particular consequential order passed, the present writ petition had been filed. 4. The 4 th respondent however claimed that the said pay fixation was granted as if the petitioner had joined on 01.04.2013 and therefore had directed for recovery of excess pay which had been allegedly drawn by the petitioner with effect from 23.07.2013. Questioning this particular consequential order passed, the present writ petition had been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Typist under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and had also written the examination and was thereafter allotted to the Judicial Department and posted to the District Court at Dindigul. Subsequently, since more number of candidates had been appointed to the Judicial Department, the petitioner had been directed to join Agricultural Department. The outer date for joining Agricultural Department was fixed on 30.04.2013. The petitioner joined duty on 29.04.2013. The learned counsel asserted that there was no mistake on part of the petitioner and that pay had been correctly fixed and additional time scale of pay also been granted to the petitioner and therefore the learned counsel stated that recovery granted will have to be interfered by this Court and set aside. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed in W.P. (MD) No. 11945 of 2014 in the case of M. Praveena Vs. The Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others dated 11.08.2022, wherein, in similar circumstances the Court had quashed the impugned order which had been issued similar to the one now questioned by the writ petitioner herein. Even in that writ petition, the question raised was about the direction of recovery of alleging excess pay paid to the writ petitioner therein. The writ petitioner therein was also initially allotted to the Revenue Department and later to the Agricultural Engineering Department due to administrative reasons. The petitioner had joined duty as Typist on 12.04.2013 but the proceedings of the respondents to recover the pay had been set aside by the learned single Judge. The relevant portions of the order reads as follows:- “10. The sequence of the events as narrated above would show that the petitioner was selected and allotted to the Revenue Department as early as on 12.12.2012. The relevant portions of the order reads as follows:- “10. The sequence of the events as narrated above would show that the petitioner was selected and allotted to the Revenue Department as early as on 12.12.2012. Due to the lack of vacancy in the Revenue Department and other Administrative daly, she was accommodated in Agricultural Engineering Department and was appointed only on 09.04.2013. She was granted two advance increments for possessing B.A Degree as per G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 02.07.1998. Through G.O.Ms.No.241, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013, the Government took note of the pay anomaly between Junior Assistants/Typists and Record Clerks with S.S.L.C. qualification and Assistants directly appointed, in view of grant of two advance increments to Junior Assistants/Typists with graduation. Finding that in the present scenario where most of the recruits are Degree holders and even have Post Graduation/Professional qualification, decided to discontinue the grant for higher start of pay to the Junior Assistants/Typists for possessing Degree qualification. It was also decided to give “Personal Pay” to directly recruited Assistants/Accountants and orders dispensation of higher start of pay to the Junior Assistants/Typists and Record Clerks and shall also to take effect from 01.04.2013. It is also mentioned in the order that in cases where higher start of pay has already been granted between 01.04.2013 and the date of issue of order, in such cases need not be effected any recovery. 11. In the case before hand, the petitioner's pay was fixed on 23.04.2013 with a higher start of pay. G.O.Ms.No.241, Finance (Pay Cell) Department was issued on 22.07.2013. As per this G.O., recovery could not be made from the petitioner. 12. That apart, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court in the order passed by the Tahsildar, Valajabath in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.546/2019/V1 that one Raghu and two others filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30012 of 2013 challenging the order of recovery. Even while this writ petition was pending, an order was passed that advance increments cannot be denied to a Typist with degree qualification merely because there was delay in giving appointment order due to administrative reasons. It is also referred to in the additional counter- affidavit filed by the first respondent. Even while this writ petition was pending, an order was passed that advance increments cannot be denied to a Typist with degree qualification merely because there was delay in giving appointment order due to administrative reasons. It is also referred to in the additional counter- affidavit filed by the first respondent. As detailed above, though the petitioner was selected in the year 2012 and allotted to the Revenue Department in counseling held on 12.12.2012, she could not be accommodated for the reason that there was no vacancy. Had the Government allotted the petitioner to the Department where vacancy is available, she would have been appointed in the year 2012 itself. She was allotted to the Agricultural Engineering Department in the second counseling, dated 26.02.2013. However she was not immediately given an appointment order. The appointment order was given only on 09.04.2013. These things had happened because of ill planning by the Government and the delay in giving appointment order to the petitioner by the Government. For the delay caused by the Government in giving appointment order to the petitioner, her rightful claim of two advance increments as per G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 02.07.1998 cannot be denied. In fact, the petitioner was granted two advance increments on the basis of this G.O., which was subsequently taken away and recovery was ordered. This action of the Government, in the considered view of this Court, is not in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of two advance increments as per G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 02.07.1998 and continue to have this increment. 13. The judgment relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC 117, it was observed that excess payment made to the petitioner can be recovered. No doubt that excess payment made to the employee can be recovered, if it is wrongly paid. In the case before hand, this Court finds that the petitioner is rightfully entitled for two advance increments. Therefore, the payment made to her cannot be considered as excess payment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this judgment relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Therefore, the payment made to her cannot be considered as excess payment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this judgment relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. It must also be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others , (2014) 8 SCC 883 had also placed directions wherein excess pay should not be recovered particularly from Group 'C' and 'D' workers. The excess pay should not have been paid owing to the representation made by the employer. It should not be recovered after a period of five years of such payment and before such recovery is made a show notice must be issued. Unless such procedure is followed, it had been very clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that recovery of pay which would cause financial difficulty to be incurred by the employee should be avoided and should not be resorted to. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner had been directed to join Judicial Department and had been directed to join District Court, Dindigul. Since it was found that there were excess staff, the petitioner was thereafter reallotted to the Agricultural Department. The outer date was fixed to join on or before 30.04.2013. The petitioner joined on 29.04.2013. The petitioner had joined within the period prescribed. The petitioner cannot be found fault for grant of additional pay scale with effect from 01.04.2013. It was not granted on any representation made by the petitioner or on misrepresentation. It is also seen that the petitioner is working in Grade 'c' post and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra directly applies to the petitioner. The respondents should also visualise the financial difficulty incurred by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above reasons, I am inclined to quash the impugned orders dated 14.10.2014 and 21.04.2015. A direction is issued to the 4 th respondent to fix the salary of the petitioner in accordance with proceedings dated 08.05.2013 in GES.No.2/5832/2013 and necessary proceedings to be issued to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a coy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.