Heard Mr. H Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. HK Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) for the respondents.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of orders dated 17.09.2013 & 18.09.2013 seeking recovery of certain amounts from their monthly pay bill and thereafter from their terminal benefits on the ground of excess payment of salary.

At the time of filing of the writ petition, petitioners were under the Pathsala Electrical Division, APDCL. Subsequently, they retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2014 and 31.12.2014 respectively. At the time of retirement, both the petitioners were serving as Sub-ordinate Engineer (Grade-II) in Pathsala Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL (Lower Assam Zone). By the two impugned orders dated 17.09.2013 and 18.09.2013, it was stated that owing to error in pay fixation of the petitioners, amounts of Rs. 1,72,979.00 were overdrawn by the two petitioners during the period from 10.04.1989 to 31.08.2013. It was further stated that this was detected by the Assistant Manager (Audit) and communicated vide his letter dated 05.09.2013, whereafter, the impugned orders were issued. It was further stated that recovery would be made from the monthly pay bill at the rate of 5,000.00 per month till superannuation of the petitioners i.e., till 31.03.2014 and 31.12.2014 respectively, and thereafter the balance amount would be recovered from the terminal benefits of the two petitioners.

While the respondents in their counter-affidavit have taken the stand that the petitioners along with others were promoted from the post of Sectional Assistant to Engineer Sub-ordinate Grade-II w.e.f. 10.04.1989, the petitioners actually joined on 01.05.1989. There was wrong fixation of pay of the petitioners taking the initial date of promotion as 10.04.1989, which led to excess pay of the petitioners to which they were not entitled. This was detected while examining the service book of the petitioners, whereafter, Finance Department of APDCL informed the authority on 05.09.2013, which is reflected in the impugned order. Thereafter the pay fixation was rectified and impugned orders were issued to the petitioners to return the excess amount received by them as per conditions mentioned in the impugned orders. It is contended that petitioners’ pay was wrongly fixed twice, one on 10.04.1989 and the other on 01.05.1989. Therefore, impugned orders are justified and no interference is called for.

Petitioners in their reply-affidavit have contested the stand taken by the respondents and have asserted that they were not beneficiaries of any excess payment. Whatever payments were made were due to the petitioners. Additionally, it is contended that the alleged anomaly in pay fixation of the petitioners were detected 24 years after the benefits were conferred on the petitioners. Recovery was sought to be made on the eve of their superannuations.

On 24.01.2014, this Court while issuing notice, stayed the recovery subject to petitioners’ executing bond to refund the differential amount.

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned recoveries are totally impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that petitioners dispute the contention of the respondents that petitioners were paid excess salary i.e., more than what they were entitled to. Even otherwise, the alleged benefits were conferred from the year 1989 till August, 2013 for more than 24 years. There was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. Moreover, the recovery was sought to be made on the eve of superannuation of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafique Masih & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 and some other cases.

On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Sta