Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter No. 7382/Admin dated 17.12.2021, issued by the Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (herein after referred to as the “IGIMS”) whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 44,57,951/- has been ordered to be recovered from 18 Employees, including the petitioners herein, of IGIMS, Patna, in monthly instalments of up to 50%.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer to restraining the respondents from making any recovery from the petitioners, on the head of excess salary paid to them on account of upgradation of pay-scale upon redesignation of the posts from LDC to UDC and simultaneously, grant of the due benefits of Assured Career Progression/Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (herein after referred to as the “ACP/MACP scheme”). It is also prayed that in case recovery has already been made, the respondent authorities be directed to refund the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondents have issued the order of recovery on the presumption that the petitioners have wrongly been granted the benefits of ACP/MACP scheme, from the specified dates, inasmuch as they had already been granted financial upgradation of pay-scale at the time of re-designation of the posts from LDC to UDC, hence the respondents have annulled the orders granting the benefits of ACP/MACP scheme to the petitioners, although they are liable to be granted such benefits, after completion of twelve years of service.

4. Though the learned counsels appearing for the respondents have submitted that upon re-designation of the post of LDC as UDC, the pay-scales of the petitioners were upgraded and thereafter, they were also granted the benefits of ACP/ MACP scheme to which they were not entitled, hence the benefits granted to the petitioners under the ACP/MACP scheme have been annulled and recovery has been ordered, but it has nowhere been denied that excess salary was paid to the petitioners on account of fault of the department/IGIMS and not on account of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners.

5. This Court finds that the law regarding recovery is no longer res integra and has been well settled in a catena of decisions reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 (Syed Qadir vs. State of Bihar); (1995) Suppl.1 SCC 80 (Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana); (1994) 2 SCC 52 (Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India); (1997) 6 SCC 139 (B.Ganga Ram vs. Regional Joint Director); (2006) 11 SCC 492 (Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar); (2000) 10 SCC 99 (Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bhadur); (2006) 11 SCC 7089 (B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India University) and (1995) suppl. 1 SCC 18 (Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana) and the one reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 (State of Punjab vs. Rafique Masih).

6. At this juncture, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer to yet another judgment rendered to by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2022) SCC Online SCC 536, paragraphs no.9, 11 and 14 to 16 whereof, are reproduced herein below: –

“9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if 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, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was i