JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the scale was wrongly paid to respondent no.1 and the said defect was detected after retirement of respondent no.1 and thereafter, the proceedings were initiated for recovery from respondent no.1 on account of payment of wrong scale. 4. It is to be noted that during the service period, no objection was raised at any point of time and also that the scale, which was granted, the respondent no.1 was neither instrumental in the award of scale nor any such allegation has been made against him. 5. Law in this regard has been settled by the apex court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015 AIR SCW 501 . In the said case, the apex court has laid down five conditions under which no recovery from such employees can be made. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment on reproduction reads as under: - "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). (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." 6. (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. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the law propounded by the apex court in the aforesaid case and we find that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any manner. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.