Recovery of erroneously paid salaries is impermissible when procedure is flawed, emphasizing employee rights and administrative fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.

Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 16.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.13687 & 12715 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeals have been filed.

3. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-National Institute of Technology, Sri A.Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in W.A.No.1278 of 2024, Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in W.A.No.1279 of 2024, and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3 in both the writ appeals.

4. It is the case of the appellants that initially, the respondents were appointed as Physical Directors and thereafter, they were promoted as Physical Directors (Selection Grade) and thereafter, they were re-designated as Associate Professors of Physical Education with effect from 01.01.2006 vide proceedings dated 25.01.2016. However, they were erroneously granted one increment whereas the persons who have completed six months of service alone are entitled to be re-designated as Associate Professors and the respondents were re-designated as Associate Professors erroneously with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.04.2006 and they were erroneously given senior scale grade pay of Rs.8,000/- with effect from 01.04.2003 and on promotion, given grade pay of Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.04.2006. Thereafter, it has come to the notice of the appellants that one extra increment was disbursed to the contesting respondents only when an audit was conducted. The Director General of Audit submitted his report on 04.04.2022 bringing it to the notice of the appellants that the appellants have erroneously paid excess amount to the contesting respondents for the period from 01.01.2006 to 10.08.2022. Hence, the appellants have revised the pay scales of the contesting respondents vide proceedings dated 10.08.2022. However, the excess amount paid to the contesting respondents for the period from 01.01.2006 to 10.08.2022 was not recovered in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (white Washer), [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ]

4.1 Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings dated 10.08.2022, the contesting respondents have submitted representations to the Grievance Committee. As the contesting respondents have submitted representations before the Grievance Committee, the appellants could not recover the excess amount from the respondents and only after redressal of grievance of the respondents by the Grievance Committee, the appellants have issued final recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024, wherein a decision was taken to recover the excess amount paid to the contesting respondents from 10.08.2022 till 25.04.2024.

5. Aggrieved by the said recovery proceedings dated 25.04.2024, the contesting respondents have approached this Court by filing subject W.P.Nos.12715 and 13687 of 2024. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, learned Single Judge vide common order dated 06.09.2024 allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the recovery proceedings. Hence, the present writ appeals.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (white Washer)’s case (supra), but the said judgment has no application to the instant case. The appellants have not recovered any amounts from the contesting respondents for the period from 01.01.2006 to 10.08.2022. When the appellants are taking steps to recover the amounts from the date of recovery proceedings dated 10.08