Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved of order contained in letter dated 24.09.2016 whereby the respondents have re-fixed salary of the petitioners in senior Grade-II with a further order for recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner, the instant writ-petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioners claim that they were appointed between 1994 to 1999. The Government of Jharkhand in the light of VIth Pay Revision recommendations constituted a Fitment Committee vide Resolution dated 15.09.2008, which submitted its recommendation whereupon the State of Jharkhand issued Resolution dated 28.02.2009. The petitioners' claim that they shall be paid salary and other allowances in pay-band of Rs.9300- 34,800/-. It is contended that in view of recommendation of the Fitment Committee which was accepted by the State of Jharkhand, though the petitioners shall remain in the same pay-band, they are entitled for payment in higher grade-pay and one increment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , where under it has been held thus; 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.
(3.) Taking note of the plea taken by the petitioners that the impugned order dated 24.09.2016 was issued in gross violation of the rules of natural justice, vide order dated 22.11.2016 the respondents were directed to file affidavit whether before issuing impugned order dated 24.09.2016 any notice was issued to the petitioners or not and whether before ordering recovery of excess payment made to the petitioners, the petitioners were afforded opportunity to put their defence or not .;