Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000 on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 23.11.1998. He was promoted vide office order dated 1.12.1998. His pay was fixed as per Annexure P-2 dated 10.3.1999. However, fact of the matter is that promotion order dated 1.12.1998 was withdrawn/cancelled vide office order dated 31.12.2001 (Annexure R-4) and the petitioner was merely placed in the higher scale of Rs. 4400-7000/-. Petitioner assailed office order dated 31.12.2001 by approaching the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Order dated 31.12.2001 was stayed. The original application was transferred to this Court and assigned CWP (T) No. 9003 of 2008. It was decided on 5.1.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 9.9.2010 Annexure P-4. He filed reply to the same on 29.10.2010. The Deputy Commissioner passed impugned order dated 21.11.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on the basis of office order dated 1.12.1998. The suitability of the petitioner was adjudged by a duly constituted departmental promotion committee, which led to the issuance of office order dated 1.12.1998. Petitioner after being promoted to the post of Junior Assistant was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000/. The promotion order was withdrawn, as noticed hereinabove, on the basis of notification dated 31.5.2001 vide Annexure R-2. According to this notification, the designation and revised equivalent of the unrevised pay scales of officials working as Senior Clerks and Junior Assistants, as on 1.1.996 was to be protected as a measure personnel to them and in future the total number of posts of Clerks including senior clerks and junior assistants in a cadre existing on 1.1.1996 was to be bifurcated into the post of clerks in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 and junior assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000 in the ratio of 50:50. The posts of Junior Assistant were to be filled up by placement to the extent of 100% out of the clerks who had an experience of working as such for a minimum period of 5 years in the cadre of department in which he was working at the time of placement. Thereafter, notification dated 31.5.2001 was clarified vide letter dated 3.11.2001. Thereafter, notification dated 31.5.2001 was clarified vide letter dated 3.11.2001. The notification dated 31.5.2001 could not be applied retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1996. A right has accrued to the petitioner on the basis of office order dated 1.12.1998 whereby he was considered for promotion by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner has neither misled nor misrepresented at the time of his promotion vide order dated 1.12.1998. The effect of issuance of notification dated 30.5.2001 read with letter dated 3.11.2001 was that the petitioner was reverted to the lower post with lower pay scale. Though, as per this notification, no recoveries were to be effected till 31.5.2001. In the case of the petitioner, order dated 31.12.2001 remained stayed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal till the decision in CWP (T) 9003 of 2008, dated 5.1.2010. Petitioner has superannuated in the year 2002. In other words, he was getting regular pay scale as per office order dated 10.3.1999 Annexure P-2 whereby his pay was fixed after his promotion vide office order dated 1.12.1998. The ground taken by the Deputy Commissioner for not considering the representation of the petitioner favorably was that he could not supersede the notifications dated 31.5.2001 and 3.11.2001. However, it was always open to the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that the rights accrued to the petitioner and similarly situated persons were not disturbed on the basis of these notifications. He was only required to harmonize notifications dated 31.12.2001, 31.5.2001 and 3.11.2001. Petitioner would suffer immensely if at this stage his pay is reduced. 3. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in State of Punjab & others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015)4 Supreme Court cases 334 have held that the recoveries would be impermissible in law from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV (Groups C and D). Their Lordships have held as under: “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 employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). 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 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.” 4. The petitioner, as already noticed hereinabove, belongs to Class-III and no recovery could be effected from 31.12.2001 till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner on the basis of stay granted by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which continued to the date of decision dated 5.1.2010, has worked on the higher post. 5. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure R-4, dated 31.12.2001 and Annexure P-6 dated 21.11.2011 are quashed and set aside. Petitioner would be deemed to be as Junior Assistant till his superannuation. His pension be worked out accordingly against the post of Junior Assistant as per promotion order dated 1.12.1998. The Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.