1. Petitioners were initially appointed as Scalar and Chowkidar in erstwhile U.P. Forest Corporation on daily wages in different years. They were subsequently regularized against Group D post on different dates by creating supernumerary post. Certain monetary benefits including time scale of pay was granted to petitioners by taking into account services rendered by them as daily wager. Petitioners are aggrieved by recovery orders passed by Managing Director, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 421 of 2025 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered.

3. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 421 of 2025 (SS) was appointed on daily wages as Scalar on 08.12.1986 and he retired from service on 31.01.2020 upon completing age of superannuation.

4. According to petitioner, he was granted benefit of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 19.09.2007, while 3rd ACP was granted to him w.e.f. 19.09.2017 however, the said benefit has been ordered to be recovered from petitioner without any reason or justification.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that benefit of 2nd and 3rd ACP was given to him as per decision taken by the management of the corporation. He refers to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4209 of 1988 (U.P. Van Nigam Karmchari Kalyan Sangh Vs. U.P. Forest Corporation) for contending that the benefits given to petitioner were in terms of the said judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment dated 12.02.2025, rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 446 of 2020 (SS) and submits that since identical issue was decided by coordinate Bench, therefore, this writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the said judgment.

7. Per contra, Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned State Counsel submits that services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of scalar vide order dated 23.12.2002 after creating a supernumerary post; he submits that service rendered by petitioner as daily wager were wrongly taken into account for grant of time scale of pay and benefit of A.C.P., therefore, the Competent Authority was well within his right to order of recovery of excess amount wrongly paid to petitioner.

8. In support of this contention, Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned State Counsel relies upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Surendra Mohnot and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 77. Para 15 and 16 of the said judgment are extracted below:

          "15. At the very outset, we may clearly state that the decision in Chandra Shekhar [Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan, Special Appeal Writ No. 377 of 1996, order dated 6-1-1998 (Raj)] pertains to grant of increments for the period prior to regularisation. It has nothing to do with the grant of selection grade. The circulars which we have reproduced hereinbefore relate to grant of selection grade. In this backdrop, it is to be seen what has been laid down by this Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi [State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 105] . In the said case, a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the issue whether ad hoc appointments or appointments on daily wages or work-charge basis could be treated as appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules as contemplated by the Government Orders dated 25-1-1992 and 17-2-1998. It was contended on behalf of the State that stagnation benefits were given from the date of regularisation and for the said purpose reliance was placed on the authority in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Assn. [(2000) 8 SCC 4 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1043] Reference was made to the language used in the circulars which uses the words "appointments relatable to the existing cadre/service". The Court referred to the provisions of the Rajasthan Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969 and various paragraphs from the Haryana case [(2000) 8 SCC 4 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1043] and the decision in Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. [(1997) 1 SCC 621 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 186] and came to hold as follows: (Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi case [State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 105] , SCC pp. 57-58, para 18)

          "18. In order to become 'a member of service' a candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely,

          (i) the appointment must be in a substantive capacity;

          (ii) to a post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy;

          (iii) made according to rules;

          (iv) within the quota prescribed for the source. Ad hoc appointment is always to a post but not to the cadre/service and is also not made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules for regular appointment. Although the adjective 'regular' was not used before the words 'appointment in the existing cadre/service' in Para 3 of the G.O. dated 25-1-1992 which provided for selection pay scale the appointment mentioned there is obviously a need for regular appointment made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. What was implicit in the said paragraph of the G.O. when it refers to appointment to a cadre/service has been made explicit by the clarification dated 3-4-1993 given in respect of Point 2. The same has been incorporated in Para 3 of the G.O. dated 17-2- 1998."

          Proceeding further, the Court ultimately held thus: (Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi case [State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 105] , SCC p. 61, para 22) "22. Apart from Haryana Veterinary case [(2000) 8 SCC 4 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1043] the position in law as stated in State of Punjab v. Ishar Singh [(2002) 10 SCC 674] and State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal [(2003) 11 SCC 732 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 444] clearly lays down that while reckoning the required length of service the period of ad hoc service has to be excluded."

          16. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite vivid that the period for grant of selection grade has to be reckoned from the date of regularisation in service and not prior to that. Thus, the aforesaid judgment of this Court pertains to the same circular and is a binding precedent from all spectrums."

9. He also relies upon a judgment dated 21.08.2024, rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 790 of 2018. Para 2 of the said judgment is extracted below:

          "2) After going through the impugned judgment, the facts which are not in dispute between the parties are that the service of the petitioner / respondent No. 1 was regularized w.e.f. 07.02.2005, and he can only get the benefit of this regular service after 07.02.2005 for the purpose of seniority, ACP and any increment benefits. However, the service rendered by the petitioner / respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 18.07.1988 till 07.02.2005 can only be counted for the purpose of pension, and this issue has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 441 of 2022, Suresh Chandra Kandwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 20.08.2024."

10. Learned State Counsel further submits that reliance placed by petitioner upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4209 of 1988, is misplaced as that judgment is silent regarding regularization and the only direction issued was to grant minimum of pay scale and other monetary benefits to persons engaged on daily wages.

11. He further submits that petitioners had given an undertaking that they will refund the amount paid to them if it is found that they are not entitled to the monetary benefits, which were paid to them. Thus he submits that in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, order for recovery, is justified. Para 10, 11 and 12 are extracted below:

          "10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 608 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 33] this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law : (SCC pp. 334-35)

          (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.

          (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.

          (emphasis supplied)

          11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.

          12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years."

12. Learned State Counsel thus submits that competent authority is justified in ordering for recovery of the excess amount paid to petitioner. He submits that the issue of excess payment was flagged by the audit team and in view of the objection raised by audit team, the competent authority ordered for recovery of the excess amount from the petitioners.

13. Be that as it may, since coordinate Bench has dealt with identical issue in Writ Petition No. 446 of 2020 (SS) and has quashed the audit report as well as subsequent Government Order dated 27.05.2019, therefore, judicial propriety demands that this writ petition be also decided in terms of the said judgment.

14. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order providing for recovery of the excess amount from the petitioners is set aside. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the competent authority from re- fixing pay of the petitioners at appropriate level, as per applicable rules/policy.