JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order No. 126 dated 22.06.2013, passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, as contained in memo No. 2439 dated 22.06.2013 and follow-up office order No. 137 dated 24.07.2013, passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa, whereby the order of recovery from the petitioner has been passed. Further prayer has been made for fixation of pay, after grant of ACP, in the scale of Rs.6500-10500. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 18.02.1980 and superannuated on 31.07.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner worked for 28 long years having an unblemished career. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3621 of 2012. The Hon’ble Court disposed of the writ application with an observation and direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with one Kedar Nath Mishra, in accordance with law. After passing of the order by this Court, the respondent-authorities have already considered the case of the petitioner for granting the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP and the pay-scale of the petitioner has also been fixed in the scale of Rs.6500-10500. It is the further case of the petitioner that after fixation of pay-scale and granting the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP in light of the order of this Hon’ble Court, the respondents were of the view that the said benefits of ACP and fixation of pay-scale have illegally been granted to the petitioner and as such, they passed an order of recovery vide order dated 24.07.2013, after passing of five years of retirement of the petitioner as the petitioner retired on 31.07.2008. Aggrieved by the said order of recovery, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that though the petitioner was granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP in view of the earlier order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 3621 of 2012, the respondent-authorities though granted the benefit of ACP, have passed an order of recovery illegally and arbitrarily. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that though the petitioner was granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP in view of the earlier order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 3621 of 2012, the respondent-authorities though granted the benefit of ACP, have passed an order of recovery illegally and arbitrarily. Learned counsel further argues that no recovery can be done in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafique Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . Learned counsel further submits that even as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Namboodripad Vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 502 , the order of recovery is illegal and fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the State is empowered to remove the anomaly at any stage, if it is found that the respondents have given the benefits which they were not entitled for. As such, the error which occurred in fixation of pay-scale of the petitioner has rightly been corrected. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. No recovery can be made after retirement that too also after passing five years from the date of retirement. The procedures laid down under law have not been followed while making the order of recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Error, if any, can be corrected by the State by following the procedure but that has not been done in the instant case. The benefit which has been provided by the order of this Court cannot be taken away illegally and arbitrarily. The procedures are laid down for any illegal benefits which has been extended by mistake to the employees. In the instant case those procedures have given a go-bye by the respondents. 7. The benefit which has been provided by the order of this Court cannot be taken away illegally and arbitrarily. The procedures are laid down for any illegal benefits which has been extended by mistake to the employees. In the instant case those procedures have given a go-bye by the respondents. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, I hereby quashed and set aside order No. 126 dated 22.06.2013, passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, as contained in memo No. 2439 dated 22.06.2013 and follow-up office order No. 137 dated 24.07.2013, passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa. So far as recovery is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to the pay-scale which was given in view of the order of this Court and the respondents have also mentioned in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner is entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500, which will remain intact. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.