ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs: In W.P.No.49974/2019 i. To quash the impugned recovery notices, issued all the petitioners, as per Annexures-D, D1 to D16 by the order dated 23.09.2019, at No.FB/55/PAY+DA/2006-2007, by respondents No.4 and 5, by the issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order as the case may be. ii. Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit on the fact and circumstances and also for costs. In W.P.No.49963/2019 iii. To quash the impugned recovery notices, issued all the petitioners, as per Annexures-G, G1 to G79 by the order dated 23.09.2019, at No.FB/55/PAY+DA/2006-2007, issued by the 4 th and 5 th respondents, by the issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order as the case may be. iv. Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit on the fact and circumstances and also for costs. In W.P.No.11332/2020 v. Quash impugned recovery notice No.KARAMUVI/HAVI-03/2019-20 as per Annexures-G, G1 to G7 dated 10.09.2020 issued by the 4 th respondent, alleged to be based upon the Government order at ED311UNE2012(PART-2) as per Annexure-D passed by the 1 st respondent dated 14.06.2019. vi. Issue such other incidental relief, which may be deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case and also for cost to secure the ends of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of these writ petitions are as follows: The petitioners are challenging the recovery notices against the same respondents, hence, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. The petitioners joined and served the 3 rd respondent, and they retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Respondent No.2 issued an order deducting the alleged amount by way of 10 instalments in the monthly pension of the petitioners, holding that the disbursement of D.A. in the said period was illegal. It is contended that respondent No.2 had issued a circular to recover the same. Respondent No.3 issued a circular for recovery of alleged excess amount of D.A. in 10 instalments. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Hon'ble concerned Minister and other respondents and the same was ignored. The respondents threatened to implement the impugned circular from July 2019, pension payment. Respondent No.3 issued a circular for recovery of alleged excess amount of D.A. in 10 instalments. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Hon'ble concerned Minister and other respondents and the same was ignored. The respondents threatened to implement the impugned circular from July 2019, pension payment. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 issued a recovery notices against all the petitioners, reporting that they will recover the arrears in 10 monthly instalments in the pension payment, which affected the petitioner. Hence, these writ petitions. 3. The respondents filed a common statement of objections in all three writ petitions contending that, the petitioners are all working/retired/resigned from the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professors at the Postgraduate Department of the respondent University. It is contended that the petitioners jointed the University service before the 6 th pay revision made by the University Grants Commission from 01.01.2006. While in service, UGC revised the pay scale from 01.01.2006 and in turn, the Government of Karnataka accepted the recommendation of the University Grant Commission vide order dated 24.12.2009 sanctioning UGC pay scales to the teachers. At the time of issuing the order dated 24.12.2009, the State Government has specifically stated that only pay scale are effective from 01.01.2006 and all other admissible allowances and other benefits are effective from the date of Government Order dated 24.12.2009. The State Government permitted the University to revise the pay scale notionally from 01.01.2006, giving actual effect from 01.01.2010. The University calculated the arrears of the teachers from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2009 and paid the same to the concerned teachers and others. The Government issued a circular dated 15.04.2009 to recover the excess payment made to the petitioners. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 15.04.2009, the respondents have issued the impugned notices. Hence, the action of the respondent University is based on the Government Order dated 15.04.2019. It is also contended that the petitioners have not challenged the Government Order dated 15.04.2019. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss all three writ petitions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondents in all three writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all three writ petitions submits that the respondents cannot recover the amount in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S TATE OF P UNJAB V S . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all three writ petitions submits that the respondents cannot recover the amount in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S TATE OF P UNJAB V S . R AFIQ M ASIH reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883 . He submits that as the petitioners have retired from service, 5 years before the recovery notices issued. The notices issued by the University is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAFIQ MASIH (Supra). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow all three writ petitions. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in all three writ petitions submits that the impugned notices were issued pursuant to the Government Order dated 15.04.2009. He submits that the petitioners have not challenged the Government Order. He also submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is applicable only to Class-3 and Class-4 employees, and it is not applicable to the petitioners. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss all three writ petitions. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioners worked in the respondent - University and they retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. During the employment, the UGC has implemented 6 th pay scale. Pursuant to the 6 th pay scale, the University had paid the amount to the petitioners. Meanwhile, the Government has issued order dated 15.04.2019. Based on the order of the Government the respondent - University has issued impugned notices. Admittedly, the petitioners were retired from service, 5 years before passing the circular of recovery by the Government i.e., dated 15.04.2019. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R AFIQ M ASIH (Supra), wherein it was held in para No.12 which reads as follows: 12. 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 has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers 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. 10. Admittedly, some of the petitioners, as of the date of issuing the recovery notices, were due for retirement and some of the employees have been already retired long back i.e., for a period in excess of 5 years before the recovery proceedings are initiated. Further, the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent - University is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R AFIQ M ASIH (Supra). 11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned orders are set aside. iii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.