ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner originally approached this Court in writ petition for payment of post-retirement benefits on his retirement on 30th June, 2012 from the post of Accounts Clerk in the office of respondent no.4- The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Road Construction Department, Seraikella Kharsawan. During pendency of this writ petition an office order was passed by the respondent no.3- The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Ranchi on 13th December, 2012 bearing letter no.1449 revoking the orders of first time bound promotion dated 9th June 1994, junior and senior selection grade dated 29th July 1995 as well as grant of 2nd ACP vide order dated 8th March, 2005. The prayer to challenge the said order through I.A. No.1003 of 2013 was allowed by order dated 1st July 2013. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 16th July 2013 bringing on record the impugned order dated 13th December 2012 as well. Respondents took the plea that petitioner had not passed the Departmental Accounts Exam though such an endorsement was entered into in his service book by the petitioner himself relying upon the letter of Board of Revenue dated 24th September 1994. Petitioner had not passed all the papers of the Departmental Accounts Exam which was necessary for promotion as well as financial upgradation. In spite of that petitioner was granted junior selection grade and senior selection grade w.e.f. 1st April 1989 and 1st April 1994 respectively by the Superintending Engineer of Swarnarekha Command Area Circle vide Annexure-J. His salary was revised in the scale of Senior Accounts Clerk at Rs.4500-7000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 which post he was not holding. By office order dated 8th March, 2005 he was again granted 2nd ACP in the scale of Rs.5500-9000/- w.e.f. 9th August 1999 without passing the requisite Departmental Accounts Exam though subject to confirmation of the Finance Department but arrear payments were taken without due verifications and confirmation. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division) objected to the confirmation of 2nd ACP vide letter dated 14th May 2007 on the same ground that it is not clear from the entry in the service book as to how many papers of Departmental Accounts Exam (preliminary and final stage) were cleared by him. He also sought query whether cadre of the petitioner had been changed w.e.f. 1st July 1983. 4. He also sought query whether cadre of the petitioner had been changed w.e.f. 1st July 1983. 4. Relying upon the Finance Department resolution dated 14th August, 2002 the respondents averred that the scale of Rs.5500-9000/- on grant of 2nd ACP was against the provisions of relevant resolution of Finance Department. The Commissioner, Kolhan Division later on granted him exemption from passing the departmental exam on his application w.e.f. 15th February 2012 vide letter of the same date (Annexure-Q). Based on these averments respondents contended that payment of salary as Senior Accounts Clerk on 1st July 1983 was not proper. Time bound promotion and junior/senior selection grade without passing requisite Accounts Exam was also illegal. Arrear payments against 2nd ACP were without requisite confirmation. Therefore, they were liable to be recovered from the petitioner. The respondents later on, on being specifically asked, produced a notice issued upon the petitioner on 13.04.2012 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 5th January, 2017) whereunder he was asked to produce the certificate of passing of Departmental Accounts Exam, failing which the benefits of ACP would be recovered from his salary/gratuity. Petitioner claims to have replied through letter dated 21st April 2012 before his impending retirement on 30th June 2012. The order cancelling the promotion and undertaking recovery from his post-retirement benefits have obviously been passed after his retirement on 13th December 2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no proof of charges of any misrepresentation or tampering of the records by the petitioner in respect of the fact relating to passing of the departmental exam based upon the letter dated 24th September 1994 of the Board of Revenue which contained the results of all such employees who had faced the departmental exam. The said document is at Annexure-9/2 to the reply to counter affidavit of the State filed on 26th November, 2014. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the said letter would show that it is in the nature of a communication to Secretaries of various departments including Road Construction by the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar on the subject of the departmental exam held on 9-10 October, 1993 for Clerks of Sub-Division, District and Muffasil offices. As per the results enclosed thereto petitioner was shown to have passed 1st paper of the exam and 2nd paper of the final stage. As per the results enclosed thereto petitioner was shown to have passed 1st paper of the exam and 2nd paper of the final stage. It is further submitted that Annexure-I to the first counter affidavit being extract of the service book enclosed by the respondents itself shows that the endorsement has been made under the signature of the Executive Engineer and there are no evidence of any interpolation in the same. In case the respondents alleged such a misconduct, no departmental proceeding were initiated after grant of time bound promotions and the junior/senior selection grade including ACP benefits till his retirement or even after his retirement. Without any proven guilt of the petitioner in any such proceeding, the impugned letter cancelling the benefits of promotion after his retirement are not proper in the eye of law and any recovery made pursuant thereto is impermissible in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 6. Petitioner contends that being an Accounts Clerk he was a Class-III employee and such recovery from his post-retirement benefits is untenable in view of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court contained at para-18 of the report. A total amount of Rs.14,12,024/- have been recovered from the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner, such as leave encashment, gratuity and pension as well. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Idris Ansari reported in AIR 1995 SCW 2886 . 7. Petitioner has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vrs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 on the point that the recovery from post-retirement benefits cannot be undertaken unless a finding of guilt is arrived at in a departmental proceeding. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 580 . 8. Counsel for the respondents have defended the decisions on the basis of their stand taken in the counter affidavit and as also reflected in the foregoing paragraphs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 580 . 8. Counsel for the respondents have defended the decisions on the basis of their stand taken in the counter affidavit and as also reflected in the foregoing paragraphs. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, does not dispute that no departmental proceedings have been initiated for any alleged misconduct relating to misrepresentation or tampering with record against the petitioner in the matter of obtaining the benefits of time bound promotion, junior/senior selection grade or ACP benefits. He, however, submits that the impugned action has been taken after notice to show-cause to the petitioner before his retirement. 9. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the detailed factual matrix of the case noticed herein above. 10. It is apparent from the chronology of facts discussed herein above that the decision to cancel his promotions granted over a period of 17 years like 1st time bound promotion, junior/senior selection grade and 2nd ACP have been undertaken after his retirement. The decisions to grant promotion at the relevant points of time are not questioned on the part of the respondents on the ground that they were not issued by the competent authorities. The promotions such as junior and senior selection grade were granted by the Superintending Engineer National Highway Division Circle Ranchi vide office order dated 29th July, 1995. Similarly the 1st time bound promotion was granted on 9th June 1994 by order of the Superintending Engineer, Swarnarekha Command Area Work Circle, Jamshedpur. The letter dated 24th September 1994 produced as Annexure-9/2 by the petitioner has not been questioned by the respondents as being a suspicious document or that petitioner had tampered it in his favour. The competent authority / Executive Engineer, Swarnarekha Command Area had endorsed the findings in the service book of the petitioner on 18th July 1995 based upon the letter dated 24th September 1994 regarding passing of the departmental exam. The said letter indicates that the petitioner had passed 1st part of the preliminary exam and 2nd part of the final exam. Based upon these promotions petitioner was granted a scale of pay which he continued to draw. Thereafter, the order of grant of 2nd ACP was also issued by the respondent authorities in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005. Based upon these promotions petitioner was granted a scale of pay which he continued to draw. Thereafter, the order of grant of 2nd ACP was also issued by the respondent authorities in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005. Though the Commissioner, Kolhan Division issued a letter dated 14th May 2007 raising certain queries about passing of exam by the petitioner but the respondents chose to sit over it till petitioner retired on 30th June 2012. In substance all the decisions of the promotions stood cancelled by the impugned letter dated 13th December 2012 after retirement of the petitioner. The impugned order, at no place, suggests any act of misrepresentation or tampering with the records on the part of the petitioner. There are no departmental proceedings initiated either against any such alleged misconduct during service career of the petitioner or thereafter. However, the benefits of the promotions have been sought to be recovered from his post-retirement benefits. 11. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) applies to the case of the petitioner as he also belongs to Class-III cadre. Apparently, the payments in question have also been made over a period of five years starting from 1994 onwards on grant of 1st time bound promotion to the petitioner. 12. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, the impugned order of recovery from the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law as well as on facts. Accordingly the impugned order dated 13th December, 2012 so far as it relates to recovery from the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner, is quashed. The respondents shall refund the amount recovered to the petitioner within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest @ 8% per annum. 13. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed