JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner, Jitender Kumar, initially filed CWP No.3291 of 2014, which upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal was transferred to the Tribunal; and now upon abolition stands transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.915 of 2019 seeking the following relief(s): “(i). That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and recovery notice dated 3rd November 2014 be quashed and set aside and the respondent be prohibited from making recovery of the amount granted in view of the judgment passed in LPA No.108/2012 titled as H.P. Rajkiya Prathmic Anubandh Sangh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another and LPA No. 105 of 2010 and benefits of merger of 50% dearness allowances with basic pay in view of the judgment passed in Nek Ram case in the interest of justice. (ii). That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly passed and the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs.213714/- with interest which has been recovered from the petitioner vide Challan dated 29.04.2014 in violation of judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.2774/2014 titled as Jitender Kumar versus State of H.P. and others.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Commerce on contract basis on 25.06.1999, with fixed contractual emoluments at Rs.1800/- per month and his services were regularized by the Department in terms of order dated 31.12.2008. Petitioner along with others filed a CWP No. 329 of 2012, titled Naveen Rana & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others, claiming revision of contractual emoluments and the aforesaid CWP was taken up along with LPA No. 105 of 2010, State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Rakesh Chand & Others, which was disposed of on 13.12.2012 by directing the State Authorities to extend the benefit of pay at initial of pay scale attached to the post as revised from time to time to JBT Teachers and to School Lecturers appointed on contract basis, alike the petitioners: (i). It is averred that the judgment dated 13.12.2012 in LPA No.105 of 2010 in the case of Rakesh Chand (supra) was assailed in SLP, which was dismissed on 09.07.2013 and after dismissal of SLP the Respondents including Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Arloo, District Una calculated the contractual emoluments at revised rates on initial of pay attached to the post of Lecturer and admissible allowance(s) for the contractual service rendered from June 1999 to December 2008 and an amount of Rs.3,48,654/- [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four] was released to the petitioner but in the month of April, 2014, an amount of Rs.2,13,714/- [Rupees Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen] was recovered from the petitioner by getting this amount remitted in Government Treasury, whereas, an amount of Rs.1,34,940/- [Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty] remained allegedly recoverable from the petitioner. (ii). Feeling aggrieved the petitioner assailed the alleged recovery in CWP No.2774 of 2014, Jitender Kumar versus State of H.P. & Others, which was disposed of on 25.04.2014 [Annexure P-4] by directing the State Authorities not to effect any recovery from the petitioner till such time a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.04.2014, a show cause notice was issued on 01.09.2014 [Annexure P-5], directing the petitioner to file response, which was submitted on 23.09.2014 [Annexure P-6] with the averment that merger of 50% dearness allowance with basic pay was allowed to contractual appointees as per the Government decision dated 11.06.2005 but this benefit was withdrawn by the Government on 24.09.2005. In reply to show cause notice, the petitioner further submitted that the adversarial order dated 24.09.2005 withdrawing DA merger benefit for contractual appointees was quashed by the High Court in CWP(T) No.14228 of 2008, titled as Nek Ram and Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh. In reply to show cause notice, the petitioner further submitted that the adversarial order dated 24.09.2005 withdrawing DA merger benefit for contractual appointees was quashed by the High Court in CWP(T) No.14228 of 2008, titled as Nek Ram and Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh. It was averred that as per Clause 4(v) of letter dated 31.03.1998, the contractual employees were entitled for initial-basic pay and other allowances and the petitioner was entitled for basic pay of Rs.6400 + allowances from date of merger from 01.06.2004 to 31.12.2005 and then at revised basic pay of Rs.10300 + allowances from 01.01.2006 till his regularization in December 2008 but the action of giving basic pay without merger and without allowances is illegal, arbitrary and therefore, the order passed by Respondent No.2-Director Elementary Education on 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] [referred to as Impugned Order] seeking recovery of Rs.3,48,654/- [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four] out of which an amount of Rs.2,13,714/- [Rupees Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen] stands recovered in the month of April, 2014 and an amount of Rs.1,34,940/- [Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty] was yet to be recovered from the petitioner. It is in this backdrop, that the petitioner has assailed the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7], with the prayer to quash the recovery and to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN INSTANT PROCEEDINGS: 3. Upon listing of this petition on 09.12.2014, the Division Bench stayed the operation of impugned order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] till further orders. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 09.12.2014, the State Authorities chose not to file any reply for about last eleven years: (i). However, upon listing of the matter today, Learned State Counsel has furnished Instructions dated 30.10.2025 [Taken on Record] admitting that similarly placed Lecturers have been paid contractual emoluments of Rs.6400/- + Allowances prior to 31.12.2005 and Rs.10300 + Allowances w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till regularization in December 2008. The Instructions further indicate that in view of developments, which had taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition, the matter needs to be re-examined by the State Authorities. 4. Heard Mr. Rocky, Learned Vice Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 5. The Instructions further indicate that in view of developments, which had taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition, the matter needs to be re-examined by the State Authorities. 4. Heard Mr. Rocky, Learned Vice Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 5. For appreciating the claim, it is necessary to have a recap of the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7], which reads as under:- Annexure P-7 Dated: 03.11.2014 “No. EDN-H(19) B (1)-7/2012-Contract Salary, Directorate of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. Dated Shimla - 171001 the 03.11.2014. Order Whereas, Sh. Jitender Kumar was appointed as a temporary measure on “Contract Basis” on fixed pay of Rs.1800/- till the joining of regular had by the Principal GSSS Tharoch, District Shimla as Lect. Commerce on 25.06.1999. Later on his services were regularized by the department vide office order No.DN-H (19) B (1) 08 contract Lecturer/2008, dated:31.12.2008. After this regularization he filed CWP no.329/2012 tilted as Naveen Rana & others and sought the benefit of revision of pay scale from time to time. This CWP was listed before the Hon’ble High Court along with LPA No.105/2010 titled as State of HP versus Rakesh Chand & others which was disposed of on 13.12.2012 with following directions:- “The direction in the judgment in Rakesh Chand’s case in CWP (T) No.781 of 2008 for granting the running pay scale to the JBT teachers from the date of their initial appointment is set aside. However, it is held that the JBT teachers appointed on contract basis will be entitled to the initial of the pay scale attached to the post of JBT teachers and revised from time to time. It is also clarified that the principle that is applied in the case of the JBT teachers in equal force would apply to the School Lecturers appointed on contract basis.” And whereas, the SLP filed against the decision passed in LPA 105/2010 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 09.07.2012. This matter was under consideration to this Govt. and directed vide instructions dated 14.11.2013 to implement the judgment passed in LPA 105/2010. Necessary directions in this regard have been issued by the department vide instruction No.EDN-H(19)B(1)-4/2013- Contract-Salary dated 23.11.2013. According to these instructions, petitioner was entitled to get Rs.6400/- fixed prior to 31.12.2005 and Rs.10300/- fixed after 1.1.2006 whereas the Principal Govt. Sr. and directed vide instructions dated 14.11.2013 to implement the judgment passed in LPA 105/2010. Necessary directions in this regard have been issued by the department vide instruction No.EDN-H(19)B(1)-4/2013- Contract-Salary dated 23.11.2013. According to these instructions, petitioner was entitled to get Rs.6400/- fixed prior to 31.12.2005 and Rs.10300/- fixed after 1.1.2006 whereas the Principal Govt. Sr. Sec. School Arloo, Distt. Una has wrongly calculated the arrear with allowances and paid Rs.348654/- in the month of Dec. 2013. And whereas, after issuance of the instructions/clarification dated 03.03.2014 of the Govt. Rs.213714/- has been recovered from Sh. Jitender Kumar and deposited in Govt. exchequer vide challan dated 29.04.2014. But Rs.134940/- is still pending to recover. And whereas, Sh. Jitender Kumar approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed CWP No.2774/2014 with the contention that his case is squarely covered in LPA 105/2010 as well as CWP (T) No.14232/2008 and recovery is to be effected pursuant to instructions dated 03.03.2014 issued by the Under Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of HP. This CWP was disposed of on 25.04.2014 with following directions:- “We find that so far no order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner. As such, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the authorities not to affect any recovery from the petitioner till such time any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner.” And whereas, after receiving the directions from the Hon’ble High Court, Sh. Jitender Kumar was served “Show Cause Notice” on 01.09.2014 and directed to file his reply within fifteen days. After receiving the reply of the Show Cause Notice, Principal GSSS Arloo, and petitioner namely Sh. Jitender Kumar were called for personal hearing on 17.10.2014. The Principal GSSS Arloo submitted that arrear amounting to Rs.348654/- was paid to Sh. Jitender Kumar inadvertently. But Rs.213714/- has been recovered. Sh. Jitender Kumar submitted his respective version as contended in his reply of Show Cause Notice. It is admitted fact that the recovery has not been in view of Govt. instructions dated 03.03.2014 however the recovery is being made on the basis that arrear calculated by the Principal GSSS Arloo is totally wrong. Whereas contractual Lecturers are entitled to get Rs.6400/- fixed prior to 31.12.2005 and Rs.10300/- fixed after 1.1.2006. However, protection of emoluments may be allowed as per departmental instruction dated 23.11.2013. instructions dated 03.03.2014 however the recovery is being made on the basis that arrear calculated by the Principal GSSS Arloo is totally wrong. Whereas contractual Lecturers are entitled to get Rs.6400/- fixed prior to 31.12.2005 and Rs.10300/- fixed after 1.1.2006. However, protection of emoluments may be allowed as per departmental instruction dated 23.11.2013. In the instant case applicant had already drawn (prior to payment of wrong arrear) more than Rs.6400/- prior to 31.12.2005 and more than Rs.10300/- after 1.1.2006 to till regularization i.e. Rs.6400+DA 61% + other allowances. The Finance Department has clarified vide letter No.Fin-F-A-11-6/06 dated 08.08.2006 that letter dated 09.05.2006 does not adversely affect the total emoluments drawn by any individual prior to the issuance of the above orders. Moreover CWP (T) no.14232/2008 is also based on the exercising the option whether they would like to be regulated under letter dated 09.05.2006, contractual lecturers were entitled for Rs.6400+3200=9600/- whereas he was drawing Rs.10704/- w.e.f. 01.06.2004. Hence the arrear amounting to Rs.3458654/- is wrongly calculated and paid to Sh. Jitender Kumar out of which Rs.213714/- has already been recovered in the month of April 2014, but Rs.134940/- is still to be recovered. Now therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the reply submitted by Sh. Jitender Kumar has been perused and reason adduced herein above casual and careless approach of the Principal Govt. Sr. Sec. School Arloo being DDO has resulted in wrong payment released in favour of Sh. Jitender Kumar which is to be recovered. Therefore, the Principal GSSS Arloo is directed to recover the amount Rs.134940/- in view of his undertaking submitted in your office on 19.12.2013. May inform the parties accordingly. Sd/- Director of Higher Education Himachal Pradesh.” ANALYSIS: 6. Sr. Sec. School Arloo being DDO has resulted in wrong payment released in favour of Sh. Jitender Kumar which is to be recovered. Therefore, the Principal GSSS Arloo is directed to recover the amount Rs.134940/- in view of his undertaking submitted in your office on 19.12.2013. May inform the parties accordingly. Sd/- Director of Higher Education Himachal Pradesh.” ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] passed by Respondent No.2-Director Elementary Education ordering recovery of total amount of Rs.3,48,654/- [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four] from the petitioner; out of which an amount of Rs.2,13,714/- [Rupees Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen] already stands recovered; and a balance amount of Rs.1,34,940/- [Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty] which is sought to be recovered [but was stayed by this Court in terms of order dated 09.12.2014], cannot be recovered from the petitioner, for the following reasons:- ENTITLEMENT OF INITIAL-BASIC OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES AS REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME: (i). The issue regarding admissibility of salary- emoluments to contractual teachers was decided by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 31.08.1995 entitling the contractual teachers (JBTs) for emoluments at minimum of scale of post with full allowances from time to time but without increments. Another communication was issued by Principal Secretary (Education) to Government of Himachal Pradesh on 23.05.2003, clarifying that teachers (JBTs) will be entitled to minimum of the scale attached to the post revised from time to time and allowances applicable/notified irrespective as to whether any fresh agreement was executed or not. The letter dated 23.05.2003 was further clarified by the Principal Secretary (Education) to Government of Himachal Pradesh on 30.07.2003 stipulating that the salary-wages to contractual teachers shall be calculated on the basic pay and allowances of respective post. Though, the Finance Department of the Government issued a letter on 14.10.2003, stating that the earlier Letters dated 23.05.2003 and 30.07.2003 shall be withdrawn, but these communications were never withdrawn by the Education Department. However, on 10.06.2005, the Finance Department reiterated the entitlement of salary-wages to contractual teachers at minimum of pay attached to the post and all other allowances to be calculated on such basic pay [without Dearness pay]. However, on 10.06.2005, the Finance Department reiterated the entitlement of salary-wages to contractual teachers at minimum of pay attached to the post and all other allowances to be calculated on such basic pay [without Dearness pay]. Even, Finance Department of the State Government issued another letter on 09.05.2006 that the contractual emoluments would be worked out at initial pay scale plus dearness pay. In continuation of letter dated 09.05.2006, the Finance Department issued a clarification on 17.05.2006 which was reiterated on 26.08.2009 by the Finance Department, whereby, benefit of 50% merger of dearness allowance [by terming it as Dearness Pay] was approved to be taken into account with basic pay for determining the contractual emoluments of teachers as per the mandate of this Court in CWP(T) No.14228 of 2008, Nek Ram (supra). This entitlement was reaffirmed by the Finance Department in letter dated 03.12.2009, entitling the contract teachers equal to initial of the pay scale plus Dearness Pay as prescribed for the post. Even the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.105 of 2010, Rakesh Chand (supra), decided on 13.12.2012 [Annexure P-2] has upheld the right of contractual teachers for salary- wages at initial-minimum of pay scale attached to the post of teachers as revised from time to time and based on this, the CWP No.329 of 2012 filed by Naveen Rana and two others [which included the petitioner, Jitender Kumar] was decided by this Court. (ii). Similar entitlement was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7449 of 2020, Sheela Kumari versus State of HP & Others, on 18.07.2024, in the following terms: “3. Claim of petitioner for her entitlement of minimum pay scale of the post, as revised time to time, as per the Contract Policy, has been accepted by the respondents-State in terms of directions passed by this High Court in CWP (T) No.-6037 of 2008 in H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh vs. State of HP & Anr decided on 30.11.2010 to grant the revised pay scale to JBT by fixing them at initial level plus allowance as admissible from time to time. 4. It is undisputed that as per the Contract Policy, formulated and adopted by the State of HP, decision was taken to engage the teachers/employees on contract basis on the minimum of pay scale of the post plus other allowances. 4. 4. It is undisputed that as per the Contract Policy, formulated and adopted by the State of HP, decision was taken to engage the teachers/employees on contract basis on the minimum of pay scale of the post plus other allowances. 4. In view of above, respondents are directed to ensure disbursement of arrears to petitioner on or before 30th October, 2024 by calculating her pay in the minimum of pay scale of the post of JBT fixed revised from time to time plus all allowances as admissible from time to time at the station with consequential benefits from the date of her initial engagement/appointment on 1.9.1997 till she remained on contract. It is made clear that failing in disbursing the amount by 30th October, 2024, petitioner shall also be entitled for interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of accrual till disbursement thereof, and after disbursement of interest to petitioner, the same shall be recovered from the erring official responsible for delay and shall be deposited in the Treasury within four weeks thereafter.” (iii). Even during the pendency of instant petition, the Division Bench of this Court decided Ex. Petition No.423 of 2023, Jameet Singh & Others versus State of H.P. & Others and other connected cases on 12.08.2024, upholding the entitlement of salary-wages-contractual emoluments at the initial-minimum of pay scale of existing scale and revised rate attached to the post on revision plus allowances with consequential benefits, in the following terms: “12. Copy of communication dated 31.08.1995 issued by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has also been placed on record. The said communication as well as communication dated 10.11.2000 issued by Directorate of Primary Education and communication dated 23.5.2003 issued by Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. have also been considered in LPA No.105 of 2010, whereby policy decision of Government with respect to salary/wages of the contract appointees was circulated by stating that contract appointee shall be entitled to allowances including Dearness Allowance (DA), HRA and CA at minimum of the scale relevant to the category to whom such appointee has been recruited and minimum of scale shall be of the scale attached to the post revised from time to time. 16. It has been also submitted by Mr. 16. It has been also submitted by Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners that salary to the petitioners has been paid on the basis of unrevised minimum pay scale of the post with allowances and on request to pay salary on the basis of revised minimum pay scale of the post, concerned Principals are conveying that in view of instructions issued by higher authorities pay shall be calculated on the basis of revised minimum pay scale of the post (fixed) but without allowances and in such eventuality there will be recovery from the petitioners. Such act on the part of respondents would be in conflict with judgment of the Court. 17. Aforesaid plea raised on behalf of respondents is misconceived. The aforesaid notifications are to be read with respect to minimum of pay scale applicable to the teachers/lecturers from time to time, but not with respect to the payment or non-payment of allowances. In case these instructions have been issued to deprive the contract teachers/lecturers from allowances admissible from time to time on the minimum of pay scale, then such an act on the part of respondents is in defiance and violation of verdict of the Court amounting to cause obstruction in administration of justice as in the judgment passed in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, approved by Division Bench by dismissing LPA No. 108 of 2012 alongwith LPA No. 105 of 2010, teachers/lecturers are held entitled for minimum pay scale of the post as revised from time to time plus admissible allowances. Therefore, aforesaid instructions require to be interpreted in consonance with the verdict of the Court. Any other interpretation in conflict with verdict of the Court is not permissible. Any instructions contrary to the verdict of the Court or nullifying the benefits extended by the judgments of the Court, is not enforceable and sustainable. Any attempt to overreach the judgments/orders passed by the Court shall invite adverse order including liability to face contempt proceedings. 18. In the aforesaid background, in present Execution Petitions vide orders dated 24.6.2024, 24.7.2024 and 26.7.2024, respondents were directed to ensure compliance of orders/judgment passed by the Court in letter and spirit. Any attempt to overreach the judgments/orders passed by the Court shall invite adverse order including liability to face contempt proceedings. 18. In the aforesaid background, in present Execution Petitions vide orders dated 24.6.2024, 24.7.2024 and 26.7.2024, respondents were directed to ensure compliance of orders/judgment passed by the Court in letter and spirit. It is apt to record that judgment dated 30.11.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 108 of 2012 has been implemented by respondents- State by releasing salary to the contract employees/JBTs on the basis of minimum pay scale of existing scale on the revised rate admissible to the post on revision plus allowances, alongwith consequential benefits. 19. Respondents have also implemented the judgment in LPA No. 105 of 2010 as well as large number of similar cases decided on the basis of that judgment passed in the said LPA No. 105 of 2010 by releasing the salary to the contract teachers/lecturers on the basis of minimum pay scale to the post as existing on date as per revision plus allowances admissible from time to time with consequential benefits. 20. Today, learned Advocate General has placed on record copy of communication dated 6.8.2024 received from Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby it has been informed that concerned Principals in these cases have been directed to release the contract salary of the petitioner(s) @ 6400/- fixed prior to 31.12.2005 and @ Rs.10,300/- fixed after 1.1.2006 alongwith admissible allowances.” Based on the mandate of law in the case of Nek Ram, Rakesh Chand, Sheela Devi and Jameet Singh (supra), the State Authorities have extended benefit of contractual salary-emoluments to the teachers by taking into account initial-minimum of pay scale plus Dearness Pay [wherever applicable] plus Grade Pay plus allowances attached to the post as revised from time to time. Even the benefits stand implemented and extended to hundreds of teachers, including Lecturers alike the petitioners. Even a perusal of Instructions dated 30.10.2025 affirm the right and entitlement of the petitioner for salary- contractual emoluments at the initial-minimum of pay [and Dearness Pay on merger] attached to the post of Lecturer and grade pay and allowances as revised from time to time during contractual service from June 1999 to December 2008. Even a perusal of Instructions dated 30.10.2025 affirm the right and entitlement of the petitioner for salary- contractual emoluments at the initial-minimum of pay [and Dearness Pay on merger] attached to the post of Lecturer and grade pay and allowances as revised from time to time during contractual service from June 1999 to December 2008. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for contractual emoluments-salary at minimum- initial of the pay attached to the post of School Lecturers at Rs.6,400 [in pay scale of Rs.6,400- 10,640 as prescribed for regular incumbents] along with allowances from June 1999 to 31.12.1995 and thereafter the emoluments-salary at minimum-initial of revised pay scale of Rs.10,300 + Grade Pay Rs.3,600 i.e. Rs.13,900/- [in pay scale of Rs.10300- 34800 + Grade Pay Rs.3600] and all admissible allowances from 01.01.1996 till regularization in December 2008. Once the entitlement is established, therefore, the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] being contrary to the Contract Policy, Instructions and the mandate of this Court cannot sustain and therefore, the Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside. RECOVERY IMPERMISSIBLE WHEN DIRECTOR ADMITS THAT EXCESS AMOUNT RELEASED BY PRINCIPAL: 7. Perusal of the Impugned Orders dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] passed by Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh admits that Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Arloo, District Una inadvertently released an amount of pay and allowances including arrears amounting to Rs.3,48,654/- [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four] to the petitioner. Even a perusal of the concluding para of the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] further admits that due to casual and careless approach of Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Arloo, District Una, being DDO, the wrong payment was released to the petitioner, which is now sought to be recovered. Once the alleged inadvertent release of amount was attributable to the casual and careless approach of the State Authorities and its officials including the Principal, GSSS, Arloo, therefore, the inaction or negligence of the officials cannot be made the basis for putting the petitioner to disadvantageous position, by passing the Impugned Order for recovery of Rs.3,48,654/- [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four]. Permitting the State Authorities and its officials to recover the amount shall certainly amount to giving leverage of the inaction, carelessness and negligence of State Authorities and its officials including Principal GSSS, Arloo, District Una as admitted in Impugned Orders [Annexure P-7]. Permitting the State Authorities and its officials to recover the amount shall certainly amount to giving leverage of the inaction, carelessness and negligence of State Authorities and its officials including Principal GSSS, Arloo, District Una as admitted in Impugned Orders [Annexure P-7]. Petitioner-employee cannot be made a scapegoat for the fault or inaction or negligence of the State Authorities and its officials. In these circumstances, the Impugned Orders of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7], being highly unreasonable and arbitrary is quashed and set aside. RECOVERY OF EXCESS AMOUNT RELEASED DUE TO WRONG CALCULATION-MISCONSTRUCTION OF RULE OR ORDER IMPERMISSIBLE: 8. The mistake committed by the Department or its officers in releasing benefits of pay and allowances due to wrong construction or wrong calculation of a rule or order [when on facts of instant case, the plea of wrong construction or wrong calculation is borne out, as discussed above], the excess amount was irrecoverable in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, in the following terms:- “5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation, the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.” (i). Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the recovery of excess amount paid due to wrong interpretation/understanding of a circular or order, in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) versus Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , in the following terms:- “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) versus Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , in the following terms:- “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/ allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [ (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [ (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [ (1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]): (a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/ allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/ order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery. 29. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery. 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11- 9-2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made.” (ii). Similarly, due to mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing norms, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir versus State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , has held in the following terms: “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” ABSENCE OF ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR FRAUD RECOVERY IMPERMISSIBLE: (iii). While quashing the recovery in a case where the excess amount was not paid without any misrepresentation or fraud, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, has mandated in following terms:- “9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.” 14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General.” (iv). Moreover, once the petitioner had not misrepresented anything and he was not a party to any fraud or such excess payment was made by applying wrong principle for calculating pay and allowances or wrong interpretation of rule or norms which subsequently came out to be wrongly applied, therefore, the order of recovery from employees not holding gazetted posts [being Stenographers and Personal Assistants] cannot sustain. Besides this, in a similar fact situation, the recovery was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Jogeswar Sahoo and Others versus District Judge, Cuttack and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724, in the following terms: “9. This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/ allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/ order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. It is held that such relief against the recovery is not because of any right of the employee but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employee from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.” INADVERTANCE OR NEGLIGANCE OF STATE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING PRINCIPAL CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR RECOVERY: (v). Petitioner at the relevant time was a Lecturer in Commerce in GSSS, Arloo on contract. During the contractual service, the issue regarding the admissibility of contractual emoluments-pay and allowances become subject-matter of various Government communications entitling contractual teachers for salary-emoluments at the initial- minimum of pay attached to the post and allowances as revised from time to time. Petitioner at the relevant time was a Lecturer in Commerce in GSSS, Arloo on contract. During the contractual service, the issue regarding the admissibility of contractual emoluments-pay and allowances become subject-matter of various Government communications entitling contractual teachers for salary-emoluments at the initial- minimum of pay attached to the post and allowances as revised from time to time. Even after merger of 50% DA with Basic Pay [terming it as DP] the right for salary during contractual service was reiterated Nek Ram and Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP(T) No.14228 of 2008, decided on 17.11.2009 and reinforced in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Rakesh Chand [LPA No.105 of 2010, decided on 13.12.2012 [Annexure P-2], reinforcing the same entitlement to the petitioner. In these circumstances, once there was neither any misrepresentation nor any fraud on the part of the petitioner whereas the erroneous payment was released due to inadvertence or careless approach or due to wrong calculation of pay or allowances by the officials of the State Authorities [as admitted in Annexure P-7], therefore, the unwarranted action cannot form the basis for penalizing the petitioner which is harsh, iniquitous and arbitrary. Thus, the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] ordering recovery of Rs.3,48,654 [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four] cannot be permitted to be recovered from the petitioner. EXCESS AMOUNT DETECTED DUE TO AUDIT VERIFICATION VISITING EMPLOYEE WITH CIVIL CONSEQUENCES-IMPERMISSIBLE: 9. Once an amount due to pay fixation was released but on indulgence of the accountant general, the amount was found to be irregular or was erroneously released then also, the excess amount accruing from audit verification was held to be irrecoverable by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 493 , in the following terms: “108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have recognized the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce hardship to the innocent employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation.” State Authorities cannot order recovery on the basis of audit note/objection(s) behind the back of an employee and that too without giving an opportunity to an employee to submit an explanation thereto. Audit details pointing out overpayment alleging recovery behind the back of an employee is ex facie violation of principles of natural justice. Consequential order of recovery based on undisclosed audit note and related material cannot sustain. ORDER OF RECOVERY VISITING EMPLOYEE WITH CIVIL CONSEQUENCES PUNITIVE: RECOVERY IMPERMISSIBLE: (i). While dealing with a situation, when the pay benefits were released which was subsequently found to be irregularly-erroneously advanced by misapplication and mis-construction of a norm or resolution cannot be recovered without giving a prior notice, without affording a personal hearing and without holding an inquiry, when, such recovery had visited an employee with civil consequences and the orders of recovery was harsh, iniquitous and grossly arbitrary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appeal No(s).1635 of 2013, has held in the following terms: “25. The Government Resolution dated 8th February, 1999 to be specific, the highlighted portion supra is amenable to the interpretation that it protects the status and pay of those employees who had received their time bound promotions prior to 31st December, 1995. As a consequence, the Secretary concerned, while rejecting the representation clearly misinterpreted and misapplied the said Resolution to the detriment of the appellant. 26. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna also seem to have fallen in the same error. As a consequence, the Secretary concerned, while rejecting the representation clearly misinterpreted and misapplied the said Resolution to the detriment of the appellant. 26. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna also seem to have fallen in the same error. In addition thereto, we are of the view that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, no such action could have been taken against the appellant, more particularly, because he had been promoted as an ADSO, while drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 applicable to the post, way back on 10th March, 1991 and had also superannuated eight years ago before the recovery notice dated 15th April, 2009 was issued. The impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 28. In case, if any reduction in pension and consequential recovery was effected on account of the impugned orders, the appellant shall be entitled to the restoration/reimbursement thereof with interest as applicable.” EXCESS AMOUNT FROM CLASS-III EMPLOYEE IRRECOVERABLE: (ii). Petitioner at relevant time was a Lecturer in school cadre, who belonged to a Class-III service under the Respondent State, the recovery in terms of Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] from a Class-III employee, cannot sustain, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334 , in the following terms:- 18. (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from 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. (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.” Taking into account the factual matrix and the mandate of law in the cases of Syed Abdul Qadri, ITC Limited, Thomas Danial, Jagdish Prasad Singh, Rafiq Masih and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), once the alleged excess amount was released [at relevant time] by the State Authorities and its officials due to erroneous calculation or wrong application of a principle for calculating pay-arrears and that too without any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner then, the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.3,48,654/- [Rupees Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four] cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice and disadvantageous to the petitioner and the same is quashed and set-aside. RECOVERY IMPERMISSIBLE DUE TO SUBSEQUENT EVENTS: 10. The State Authorities have issued the recovery orders on 03.11.2014 [Annexure R-7] on account of erroneous calculation and release of pay and arrears by the officials of State Authorities. The Director concerned has admitted that the erroneous release of arrears was attributed to Principal of School concerned. Now, the Division Bench of this Court, reinforced the entitlement of contractual emoluments at the initial-minimum attached to the post [which includes DP on merger of 50% DA with basic pay and thereafter includes GP with basic pay] revised rates admissible to the post on revision plus allowances with consequential benefits in in CWPOA No. 7449 of 2020, Sheela Kumari vs. State of HP & Others, decided on 18.07.2024 and in Ex. Petition No. 423 of 2023, Jameet Singh & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others and other connected cases, decided on 12.08.2024, which stand implemented. Petition No. 423 of 2023, Jameet Singh & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others and other connected cases, decided on 12.08.2024, which stand implemented. Based on this, once the benefit of contractual emoluments have been given to similarly placed teachers [School Lecturers by State Authorities] as in the Instructions dated 30.10.2025 by following the principle that contractual emoluments are to be given at initial of pay attached to post and allowances as revised from time to time which was validly released to the petitioner by the Principal GSSS, Arloo, which were in tune with the mandate of law in Nek Ram, Rakesh Chand, Sheela Kumari and Jameet Singh (supra) and such entitlement has now been reiterated/accepted in the Instructions dated 30.10.2025 [Taken on Record] as given to other similarly placed Lecturers at initial-minimum of pay attached to the post and allowances at the rate of Rs.6400 + allowances prior to 31.12.1995 and at Rs.10300 + Grade Pay + allowances from 01.01.2006. In these circumstances, once the very foundational events leading to passing of Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] has become obsolete and non- existent and the right of the petitioner stands reinforced, for salary-contractual emoluments at initial-minimum of pay attached to the post of Lecturer at Rs.6400 + allowances w.e.f. June 1999 till 31.12.2005 and then at Rs.10300 + Grade Pay + allowances w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till he served on contract till regularization on 31.12.2008. Therefore, the Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] cannot sustain and the same is quashed and set- aside. INSTRUCTIONS NULLIFY IMPUGNED ORDER: 11. The Instructions dated 30.10.2025, uphold the right of petitioner for contractual emoluments, during contractual service at initial-minimum of pay as revised from time to time and allowances, rendering the Impugned Order of recovery obsolete. Accordingly, the State in terms of Instructions dated 30.10.2025, may re-examine the matter, except qua recovery, which stands quashed by this Court, in terms of this judgment. RECOVERY BY WAY OF PENALTY IMPERMISSIBLE: 12. In addition to the above, even the recovery of Rs.3,48,654/- has been ordered or sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The impugned order is certainly punitive and such order has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. RECOVERY BY WAY OF PENALTY IMPERMISSIBLE: 12. In addition to the above, even the recovery of Rs.3,48,654/- has been ordered or sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The impugned order is certainly punitive and such order has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. Such penalty, by way of recovery could not be resorted to by the State Authorities, without complying with the mandate of Rule 16 of the CCS [CCA] Rules i.e. without issuing a memorandum of charges and calling for a reply and in case the facts in reply were disputed then by resorting to an inquiry, as contemplated in Rule 14 of the CCS [CCA] Rules. No compliance of statutory rules has been made by respondents in the instant case. Nothing has been brought on record by Learned State Counsel that any such compliance of Rule 16 and Rule 14 has been resorted to by the respondents in instant case. Pertinently, in facts of instant case, once the petitioner had denied the allegations and the Disciplinary Authority-Director of Higher Education [at the relevant time] has neither formed any opinion on certain objective criteria nor recorded reasons and had not conveyed such reasons to hold or not to hold an inquiry against petitioner therefore, punitive action was uncalled for. In absence of any formation of opinion, absence of recording reasons and even absence of communicating such reasons but in passing the impugned order of recovery is unsustainable. While dealing with a pari materia provisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami, (2014) 13 SCC 211 , nothing has been pointed out that the State had formed an opinion, supported by reasons, which were communicated to the petitioner to assert as to why the inquiry was not required in instant case. Non-compliance of these mandatory ingredients vitiates the impugned order of recovery, which is without authority of law. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] is quashed and set aside. RECOVERY STAYED SINCE 09.12.2014 TILL DAY: 13. The Impugned Order of recovery of Rs.3,48,654/- was issued by State Authorities on 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7]. Out of this amount, the State Authorities have recovered an amount of Rs.2,13,714/- [Rupees Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen] from the petitioner which stands remitted in Government Treasury. RECOVERY STAYED SINCE 09.12.2014 TILL DAY: 13. The Impugned Order of recovery of Rs.3,48,654/- was issued by State Authorities on 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7]. Out of this amount, the State Authorities have recovered an amount of Rs.2,13,714/- [Rupees Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen] from the petitioner which stands remitted in Government Treasury. The balance amount of Rs.1,34,940/- [Rupees One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty] was sought to be recovered, stands stayed by this court on 09.12.2014 and is continuing as on day. Moreover, once the very basis for recovery, originated from wrong calculation or misinterpretation or misapplication of norms [and this stand has become obsolete and non- existent after passing of the judgments in Rakesh Chand, Sheela Devi and Jameet Singh (supra), granting the contractual emolument at initial-minimum of pay and allowances as revised from time to time] then the amount is irrecoverable. Further the plea of the State that the Principal of School has wrongly calculated the emoluments, cannot be a ground for affecting recovery. CONCLUSION: 14. Based on the factual matrix and the material on record and in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed hereinabove, the Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7], passed against the petitioner, who is a Class-III-Employee [School Lecturer] cannot sustain as per the law in Syed Abdul Qadir, ITC Limited, Thomas Danial, Jagdish Prasad Singh, Rafiq Masih and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). Recovery cannot be affected when, the alleged excess amount was disbursed by the State Authorities and is officials due to alleged wrong calculation of pay-allowances without any fault or misrepresentation of the petitioner. Recovery cannot be affected when, the alleged excess amount was disbursed by the State Authorities and is officials due to alleged wrong calculation of pay-allowances without any fault or misrepresentation of the petitioner. Excess amount sought to be recovered is contrary to the mandate contained in judgments in the cases of Nek Ram, Rakesh Chand, Sheela Devi and Jameet Singh (supra), entitling a contractual employee-teacher including the petitioner, for the contractual emoluments-salary at minimum- initial of pay attached to the post and allowances as revised from time to time Even, as per Instructions dated 30.10.2025 the Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 cannot sustain, for the reason that due to subsequent events and the reiteration of the mandate in the cases of Rakesh Chand, Sheela Devi and Jameet Singh (supra), the State Authorities have themselves fixed the pay of other similarly placed teachers by applying the principles contained in aforesaid judgments [i.e. minimum of pay attached to post and allowances as revised from time to time] therefore, the recovery cannot sustain]. Moreover, the Impugned recovery order which has visited the petitioner with civil consequences without affording a personal hearing to the petitioner which was never given. Besides this, the recovery being punitive could not be ordered/attached without complying with the mandate of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and without forming an opinion, supported by reasons and without communicating the same to the petitioner as to why the inquiry was or was not necessary as per the principle mandate in the case of Sarat Chandra Goswami (supra), which was never complied with. Petitioner could not be placed to a disadvantageous or prejudicial position, due to alleged acts or negligence or inaction in wrongly calculating the pay and allowances at relevant time, which calculation is found to be in tune with the judgments passed by this court in Rakesh Chand, Sheela Devi and Jameet Singh (Supra) and further when, the benefits of these judgments have been given to other similar teachers and thus the petitioner being similarly placed deserves same treatment. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order of recovery is quashed and set-aside. DIRECTIONS: 15. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition, is allowed, in the following terms: (i). Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] is quashed and set-aside; (ii). In these circumstances, the Impugned Order of recovery is quashed and set-aside. DIRECTIONS: 15. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition, is allowed, in the following terms: (i). Impugned Order of recovery dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7] is quashed and set-aside; (ii). State Authorities are restrained from affecting recovery in pursuance to the Impugned Recovery order dated 03.11.2014 [Annexure P-7]. (iii). State Authorities shall refund the recovered amount of Rs.2,13,714/- [Two Lakh Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen] to the petitioner on or before 31.01.2026; (iv). Amount of Rs.1,34,940/- [One Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty], which was stayed, by this Court on 08.12.2014 is held irrecoverable from the petitioner hereinafter; (v). Liberty reserved to the petitioner to claim interest, on amount which stands recovered till realization, in terms of this judgment; (vi). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.