ORDER :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsels for the writ petitioners. Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appears for the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

2. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed in WP(C) 258/2022 and the other 7 writ petitions should be reviewed, inasmuch as, this Court had allowed the writ petitions by holding that there could not be a recovery of any excess payment of salary made to the writ petitioners, as they were holding Class-III (Group-C) post, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

3. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that when going into the Pay Scale enjoyed by the writ petitioners and the Grade Pay being given to them, it is clear that the writ petitioners were holding Group-B posts and not Group-C posts. He also submits that while there had been wrong fixation of pay of the writ petitioners as far back as on 01.01.2006, the writ petitioners had executed Undertakings in the year 2008 that they would refund back the excess pay given to them, due to any wrong fixation of pay. He submits that the recovery of the wrong fixation of pay of the petitioners started in the year 2021 and as the Undertakings given by the writ petitioners were still valid, there was no infirmity in the recovery of the excess pay given to the petitioners even after 15 years.

4. The learned CGC for the review petitioners further submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, an employee who has furnished an Undertaking that excess payment made to him would be refunded, was bound by the Undertaking so given. He accordingly submits that the impugned judgment and order passed in WP(C) 258/2022 and the other writ petitions should be set aside by allowing the review petition.

5. Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners, on the other hand submits that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and as such, when a lengthy process of reasoning is required to be undertaken to decide whether the impugned judgment is sustainable, a review petition will not be maintainable. He also submits that there was no stand taken by the review petitioners at the time of disposal of the writ petitions, that the Pay Scale and Grade Pay enjoyed by the writ petitioners showed that they belonged to Group-B posts. He submits that the undertaking given by the petitioners was in respect of the 6th Pay Commission recommendation, which was accepted vide the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. However, another pay fixation was again done in the year 2010 and 2013, for which no undertaking for refund of excess pay was given by the writ petitioners. He also submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [supra], when there has been wrong fixation of pay for more than 5 years, the question of recovery of the wrong fixation of pay does not arise, especially when there is no fraud or misrepresentation made on the part of the writ petitioners. He also submits that in terms of the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh, through Principal Secretary and Others vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, reported in 2024 SC OnLine MP 1567, recovery can be effected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary of the employee, based on the Undertaking or the Indemnity Bond given by the employee before the grant of benefit of pay refixation. However, as the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held that recovery by the employers would be impermissible in law when