JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. Heard Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who prays for sometime to file a supplementary counter affidavit. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this matter is covered by the judgment and order passed in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 [arising out of SLP (c) No.11684 of 2012]. 3. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering all the cases right from Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , upto Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others (2012) 8 SCC 417 , has laid down some guidelines that recoveries after retirement shall be impermissible. The same are quoted below for ready reference : "(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 employees, 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." 4. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to class III services. 5. Petitioner has said that his case is covered by the above guidelines. 6. The Court has gone through the counter affidavit and finds that the stand of the opposite parties is solely based on the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), which has been reconsidered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and the above judgment is the latest judgment on the subject, the Court finds that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra). 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. The impugned orders dated 19.7.2013 and 17.8.2013, Annexure Nos. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. The impugned orders dated 19.7.2013 and 17.8.2013, Annexure Nos. 1 & 2, are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to full payment of post retiral dues without any recoveries.