ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25th November, 2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.712 of 2008 refused to quash the order of retirement bearing no.2341 dated 29th December, 2007 wherein the writ petitioner/appellant herein was declared to have retired from service w.e.f. 31st May, 1993 and payments made to the petitioner since 1st June, 1993 were ordered to be recovered from his retirement benefits. 3. The facts which are not in dispute between the parties are as under:- Writ petitioner entered into service on 1st May, 1975 at Patratu Thermal Power Station (in short PTPS) on the post of Dish Washer. His service book was opened in the year 1991 where his date of birth was recorded as 3rd February, 1953. This apparently was on the basis of a certificate of fitness issued by the Medical Officer of the PTPS, who assessed the age of the petitioner as 35 years on his self declaration and by his appearance. The respondents allowed him to continue in service till March, 2007 when he was asked by the Joint Secretary, JSEB through memo no.521 dated 9th March, 2007 to explain as to why he be not ordered to be retired from service w.e.f. 31st May, 1993 as his date of birth recorded in the biodata and also in nomination paper relating to provident fund is 2nd May, 1933. Petitioner submitted his explanation that he was illiterate and had only put his signature over the bio-data and the nomination form whose entries were filled up by the Office Assistant. He was again asked to show cause as to why he be not be retired w.e.f. 31st May, 1993 and the excess payment made be not be recovered from the retirement benefits. His second show cause again was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, he was made to retire w.e.f. 31st May, 1993 by the order impugned dated 29th December, 2007 and excess payment made to him since 1st June, 1993 were ordered to be recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the order of recovery upheld by the learned Single Judge which is the main reason for the appellant to be aggrieved. It is contended that the employer allowed the petitioner to continue for 14 long years in service and also took work from him all along. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the order of recovery upheld by the learned Single Judge which is the main reason for the appellant to be aggrieved. It is contended that the employer allowed the petitioner to continue for 14 long years in service and also took work from him all along. It is not that these documents were not in the conscious knowledge and possession of the employer and his controlling authority. Even as per the admitted facts of the parties there could be two date of births one as reflected in the service book and the other as reflected in the bio-data and the nomination form. The petitioner is an illiterate employee working on a Class IV post of the Dish Washer. No documents relating to his service were in his possession. If work has been taken after 1993 of a post of Dish Washer, then recovery of the entire salary and other emoluments paid over a period of 14 years would not only lead to taking Begar in teeth of Article 23 of the Constitution of India but also prove to be highly iniquitous and arbitrary. The judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the case of Radha Kishun Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 239 has been considered by the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117 and distinguished. The Apex Court has clearly held in favour of the employee in the case of Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad. The facts of his case were distinguishable from that of Radha Kishun's case where there was no dispute as to the date of retirement of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . It is submitted that Apex Court has examined the precedents on the instant subject and laid down detailed guidelines whereunder recoveries by the employer would be impermissible in law. The underlying basis to deny recovery is the extremely iniquitous and arbitrary result that it may entail especially in cases of employees of Group C and Group D cadre. It is submitted that Apex Court has examined the precedents on the instant subject and laid down detailed guidelines whereunder recoveries by the employer would be impermissible in law. The underlying basis to deny recovery is the extremely iniquitous and arbitrary result that it may entail especially in cases of employees of Group C and Group D cadre. Moreover, where payments have been made for a period in excess of five years though it was open to the employer to correct the mistake. The order of recovery would definitely result in grave hardship. Therefore interference is called for so far the question of recovery is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge (one of us Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) in the case of Pankaj Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2015(2) JLJR 581 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has supported the decision primarily on the ground that the employee should not be allowed to avail all benefits wrongly secured. The employee was guilty of misrepresenting facts when he submitted personal details in his bio-data and his nomination form. The particulars filled up in his nomination form as also recorded in the impugned judgment would show that his eldest son aged about 30 years would have born on 1st January, 1956 i.e. within a difference of only two years eleven months which could never be possible. The other sons were said to be aged about 28 years, 26 years, 24 years and 22 years while the age of the third daughter was shown as 20 years as per particulars of his family members in the year 1994. He also points out that one of his sons namely Indradeo Ram was employed in the Electricity Supply Division, Ramgarh Cantt. on the post of unskilled Khalasi. In his service book his date of birth recorded as 1st January, 1956. The employee has benefited on account of his own wrong and cannot be allowed to derive any benefit out of that. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including that of Radha Kishun (supra) and others such as Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 were on the premise that the employee should not be allowed to gain advantage of his own wrong. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including that of Radha Kishun (supra) and others such as Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 were on the premise that the employee should not be allowed to gain advantage of his own wrong. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference as it does not suffer from any such errors of law and fact. 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties, relevant material facts pleaded and also gone through the judgment cited at the Bar. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. In the narrative of the facts discussed above, the only issue which deserves to be answered is whether under the given set of admitted facts and circumstances, the respondent-Board was justified in recovering the total salary and allowances paid to the appellant over a period of 14 years right from 1st January, 1993 till the issuance of the order dated 29th December, 2007. The materials on record definitely point out that there were at least two records with the employer relating to the date of birth of the employee. One the entry made in the service book in the year 1991 by conscious application of mind by his controlling officer may be on the basis of the certificate of fitness furnished by the Medical Officer of the PTPS. The other records also in the conscious possession of the employer were the bio-data and nomination form. The provident fund forms were filled up in the year 1984. It is also true that the employee had joined service in the year 1975 on the post of a Dish Washer which is a Class IV post. It is not in dispute that there are no certificate of educational qualification which carried the date of birth of the employee. In this background, it fails to reason as to why the employer allowed the writ petitioner-appellant to continue in his job for 14 long years till 2007. All these records were definitely in the conscious possession of the employer or the controlling officer and not with the employee i.e. the writ petitioner. It is not alleged that the employee tampered with any of the records. The employer continued to take work from the employee for all along these 14 years. 7. All these records were definitely in the conscious possession of the employer or the controlling officer and not with the employee i.e. the writ petitioner. It is not alleged that the employee tampered with any of the records. The employer continued to take work from the employee for all along these 14 years. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) have after survey of the precedents on the subject clearly observed at Para 7 of the report that the orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the employees can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore, eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. The Apex Court has further at Para 13 of the report observed that when the excess unauthorized payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Iniquitous as it would be perceived as arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Iniquitous as it would be perceived as arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If a recovery is made for a period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee. A Government employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family. On these underlying principles, the Apex Court has summarized the situations where recoveries by the employer would be impermissible in law at Para 18 of the report quoted hereunder:- “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein 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. (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 maid from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employers right to recover.” 8. We also find that reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (supra) is justified. We also find that reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (supra) is justified. The case of Radha Kishun (supra) was distinguished as there was no dispute as to date of retirement of the appellant in that appeal. There was only one date of birth mentioned and he had retired on the basis of his date of birth so entered. In the present case, the service book of the employee contains a date of birth i.e. 3rd February, 1953 which was neither tampered with nor corrected by the employer after any notice to the employee over a period of 16 years till 2007 when the impugned notice was issued. There was another records i.e. the Bio-data and the nomination forms which showed a different Date of birth. The appellant being an illiterate employee working on a Class IV post has not been alleged to have indulged in any tampering with the records to gain an advantage. In any case, no such disciplinary enquiry has been held against him. When the employee has worked for 14 years in conscious knowledge of the employer, it would be really iniquitous and entail extreme hardship if recovery of such amount is made from the post retirement benefits of the employee. We are strengthened by the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (supra) and Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) to come to an opinion that the employer should not be allowed to recover the amount of salary and allowances paid to the employee for the period in question i.e. 1st June, 1993 till the date he was retired in 2007 as per the impugned order dated 29th December, 2007. 9. The impugned judgment deserves interference to that extent. However, while holding as above, we make it clear that all retirement benefits would be calculated from the date of his original retirement i.e. 31st May, 1993. 10. The instant appeal stands allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove. Needless to say the respondent-employer should process the post retirement dues of the employee in accordance with law within a reasonable time.