Recovery of excess emoluments paid due to an employer's error is impermissible if the employee did not induce the payment through fraud or misrepresentation. Judicial discretion prohibits such recovery to prevent undue hardship and address the inherent inequality in bargaining power, especially concerning lower-tier service employees.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Chudasama, appearing for the petitioners, learned AGP, Mr. Shah, and learned Advocate, Mr. Thakor, appearing for the respective Respondents in these matters.

2. Considering the fact that the issue involved in these matters is identical, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, all these matters are taken-up for hearing and final disposal, today. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, and learned Advocate, Mr. Thakor, waive service for the respective Respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, as the facts of all these matters are more or less similar, Special Civil Application No. 4740 of 2023 is treated as the lead matter and the facts are drawn, there from and the learned Advocates for the parties made their submissions in respect of facts of that petitioner, as the legal point involved in these petition is the same.

4. The facts, as stated in Special Civil Application No. 4740 of 2023, are as under;

The petitioner, therein, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary Section in Smt. M.U. Pethani Adarsh Primary School, Taluka: Deesa, District: Banaskantha, i.e. Respondent No.6-school and the same was done on receiving approval of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 15.06.1989. Thereafter, in view of the Government Resolution dated 14.08.1998, which provided for the First Higher Pay Scale to the employees, who had no promotional post and therefore, in view of the less chance of promotion, on completion of 9 years’ service an employee was held to be entitled to get the First Higher Pay Scale. Hence, the Respondents, vide order dated 22.03.1999, granted the First Higher Pay Scale to the petitioner, as the petitioner had completed 9 years’ service.

4.1 Thereafter, as per GR dated 02.07.2007, as the petitioner had completed 20 years’ of service, he was granted the Second Higher Pay Scales with effect from 15.06.2009 and thereafter, the petitioner was being paid the salary, accordingly. The aforesaid fact was also entered into the Service Book of the petitioner and the petitioner continued to get the Second Higher Pay Scales for the period of about 14 years and then suddenly, Respondent No.3 issued an order dated 01.03.2023 to the Principals of as many as eight schools of the Banaskantha District, whereby, the benefit of grant of the Higher Pay Scale was withdrawn and the pay scale of the petitioner was revised along with the grade pay. The schools were also directed to revise the pay-scale of the petitioner, as per the entitlement, and to refund the excess amount received by the petitioner by April, 2023.

4.2 The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order by way of the present petitions and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.03.2023, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih & Others’, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, stayed the recovery proceedings, till further orders. All the petitioners have been enjoying the aforesaid protection, whereby, recovery against the petitioners is stayed.

5. However, according to learned Advocate, Mr. Chudasama, at present, the pay-scale of all the petitioners have been revised and they are being paid less, than, what they were getting earlier, pursuant to the order dated 22.03.1999 and the order of 2009, whereby, the petitioners were granted the First and the Second Higher Pa