ORDER Alok Sharma, J. Counsel for the petitioner has limited the challenge in this writ petition to recovery order dated 5-10-2014, consequent to order dated 15-9-2014, and has abandoned the challenge to her revised pay fixation. 2. A teacher Grade-II at the relevant time at the Government Girls Senior Secondary School Gangapole Jaipur, the petitioner filed Writ petition SBCWP No.4610/1997, titled Sushri Raj Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan. Vide order dated 22-8-1997, the petition was allowed and the respondent State directed to sanction in favour of the petitioner selection grade on completion of 9-18-27 years of service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 29-11-1975. Resultantly the District Education Officer vide order dated 20-7-2001 granted benefits of selection grade/s to the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 29-11-1975. The petitioner was also granted and availed ACP of 9300-34800 with grade pay 4800 with effect from 29-11-2006 with reckoning the period of her service with reference to her initial appointment on 29-11-1975. The petitioner pursuant to order dated 21-9-2010 had been receiving selection scale with ACP since 29-11-2006. 3. Vide order dated 15-9-2014 the Director Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner held that as the petitioner was an untrained teacher, she was entitled in terms of the Government's circulars to benefits of selection scale only following ten years after her initial appointment i.e. from 29-11-1985. Resultantly the amount earlier paid to the petitioner conferring benefits of selection scale with reference to her initial date of appointment i.e. 29-11-1975 was reworked and it was found that an amount of Rs.1,40,139/- had been over paid to the petitioner in the interregnum. Thereafter vide order dated 7-5-2015 the recoverable amount was reduced to Rs.80,777/-. In the meantime the petitioner superannuated from the post of Teacher Grade-II on 31-12-2014. Hence this petition. 4. The amount of Rs.80,777/- has since been recovered from the petitioner's gratuity during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dominant view of the courts is that where excess amounts are paid to an employee without any fraud or misrepresentation attributable to him, the said amount not be recovered subsequent to retirement. The amount of Rs.80,777/- has since been recovered from the petitioner's gratuity during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dominant view of the courts is that where excess amounts are paid to an employee without any fraud or misrepresentation attributable to him, the said amount not be recovered subsequent to retirement. Reference has been made to the judgment of a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, [2008(7) SLR 642] wherein it has been held that where excess amount was paid to an employee on a wrong interpretation of the rule then applicable, for which the employee was not responsible and sought to be recovered at the stage when the employee was at the verge of retirement, to eschew any hardship to him no such amount paid, should be recovered. Reference was also made to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [ (2015)4 SCC 334 ] wherein it was again reiterated that excess amount paid to an employee not for reasons of his fraud or misrepresentation should not be recovered, for otherwise the employee would suffer hardship. Para 18 of the judgment set out illustratively the situations where no recovery of overpaid amounts to an employee should be made:- “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, summarize the following few situations, where 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. (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.” 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by clause (ii) of para 18 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra) as the petitioner had retired from service before the alleged excess amount recovered. 7. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Addl. GC has however referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand [ (2012)8 SCC 417 ], wherein the court expressed its doubts over the broad proposition that recovery of excess amount paid to an employee erroneously, and even when not attributable to fraud or misrepresentation on his behalf cannot be made. Reliance has been placed on para 16 of the aforesaid judgment which reads thus:- “16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as tax payers money which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/ received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.” Heard. Considered. 8. The Apex Court has evidently held in a majority of its decisions that where excess amount is paid to an employee, not for reasons attributable to the employee, such as fraud or misrepresentation and/ or where excess amount paid is sought to be recovered after a substantial delays from law paid employee on verge of retirement or who has retired reasons of equity would militate against such recoveries and the courts interfering against such recoveries. Even in the case of Chandi Prasad (supra) decided by two judges in para 17 of the judgment it has been stated that wrong/ irregular payments can be recovered except in the few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) (Three Judges) and Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India [ (2006)11 SCC 709 ]. 9. It is not the case of respondents that the petitioner had contributed in any manner whatsoever to obtain over payment or engaged in fraud or misrepresentation wherefrom excess salary was paid to her. Contrarily from the facts on record it emerges that the petitioner was allowed selection grade on completion of 9-18-27 years of service with reference to her initial date of appointment on 29-11-1975 under the directions of this court. Contrarily from the facts on record it emerges that the petitioner was allowed selection grade on completion of 9-18-27 years of service with reference to her initial date of appointment on 29-11-1975 under the directions of this court. Thereafter on reconsideration of the matter, on the fact of the petitioner being an untrained teacher at the time of her appointment and the State Government's circulars to allow benefits of selection grade on completion of 9-18-27 years of service to untrained teacher only following ten years of their appointment, recovery of excess salary paid was sought to be made for the period January, 2007 to September, 2014 vide order dated 15-9-2014 and 5-10-2014 at the stage when the petitioner was on the verge of superannuation. He has since superannuated on 31-12-2014. And part of recovery sought to be made relates to beyond five years effectively injected by the Apex Court in the Case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 10. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. It is directed that the amount of Rs.80,777/- recovered from the petitioner's gratuity due following her retirement, despite the interim order dated 27-1-2015 be refunded to her. The refund as directed be made within three months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the said amount of Rs.80,777/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of appropriation by the State Government, despite the interim order dated 27-1-2015, till the date of refund. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.