ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

The above Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ calling for the records pertaining to the common order dated 25.02.2020, passed in O.A.Nos.591 of 2018 and batch, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Respondents herein are all employees of Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Union of India New Delhi. Sri Bhavanarayana, who was working as Senior Accountant in the Office of Directorate of Accounts (Postal), Nagpur, State of Maharashtra, sought transfer to the Directorate of Accounts (Posts), Hyderabad. His transfer was considered by reverting the person to a lower post of Junior Accountant with corresponding pay. Accordingly, Sri Bhavanarayana has joined as a Junior Accountant in Directorate of Accounts (Postal), Hyderabad, on 31.07.1990. He was later promoted as Senior Accountant on 01.02.1995. He was granted Second Financial Upgradation under ACP (Assured Career Progression Scheme) on 10.06.2007. The employees working in Directorate of Accounts (Postal), Hyderabad, started claiming that their junior is drawing higher pay than them and therefore, their pay should be stepped up.

3. It appears similar issues were raised in various States and in various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The dispute was considered and decided by the Tribunal. Based on the decision of the Tribunal, the pay of the respondents herein was stepped up on par with Sri Bhavanarayana with effect from 10.06.2007 and such pay was financed. The petitioners having realized that granting of stepping up of pay was erroneous and contrary to the scheme of Assured Career Progression (ACP) which was superceded by the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and that the claim of the respondents for stepping up of their pay by comparing to the pay drawn by Sri Bhavanarayana, was not correct. Steps were taken to refix the pay and to recover the excess amount alleged to have been paid on account of the earlier wrong pay fixation.

4. Vide letter dated 08.06.2018, recovery intimation was communicated to the respondents. The letter points out that stepping up of pay allowed to the respondents in January 2016 was not valid as the pay of respondents at any point of time was not more than the pay of Sri Ch. Bhavanarayana prior to his ACP/MACP upgradation and therefore, a decision was taken to revise fixation and to order recovery. In a tabular form vide Ex.P5, the amount paid to the respondents and excess amount to be recovered, was also mentioned. Aggrieved by this recovery intimation letter, the batch of OA’s are instituted before the Tribunal.

5. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide judgment impugned herein, approved the decision of the petitioners to revise fixation and reduce the pay payable to the respondents, ordered not to resort to recover excess amount already paid on the ground that the respondents have not played fraud nor there was misrepresentation in getting the benefit.

6.1 Learned Assistant Solicitor General contends that the Tribunal erred in staying the recovery. When excess amount was paid erroneously, the State as employer is entitled to correct the error and to recover the excess amount paid to the employees and therefore, merely because employees did not play fraud or misrepresentation, is no ground to withhold the recovery.

6.2 Learned Assistant Solicitor General also contends that keeping the excess amount erroneously paid amounts to undue enrichment.

6.3 He further submits that at the time of determination of higher pay fixation and payment of amount, the employees have given an undertaking (Ex.P26 in W.P.No.15561 of 2021 is one such undertaking) that in case of revision of pay fixation and if it was found that excess amount was paid, the petitioners are entitled to recover. Having agreed to recover the excess amount paid to them, it is no more open to respondent employees to chal