ORDER : 1. With a prayer seeking quashing of orders contained in letters dated 11.03.2010, 07.02.2011 and 19.04.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court. In essence, grievance of the petitioner is against the order of recovery of excess payment made on account of grant of ACP benefits to him. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 23.11.1970 and on completion of ten years' service, 1st Time-bound promotion was granted to him with effect from 01.04.1981. He was granted 2nd Time-bound promotion and it is stated that with effect from 09.08.1999, he was given 1st ACP. He superannuated from service on 30.06.2009. He claims that time-bound promotions were granted to him when he passed the departmental examination. Initially, he received provisional pension, however, subsequently, it was stopped without a show-cause notice to him. He approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.5519/2010 for a direction to the respondents for payment of full pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. The writ-petition stood disposed of by an order dated 07.01.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation on which the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa was to take a decision within six weeks. 3. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken a plea that in compliance of order passed by the writ Court, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 30.11.2011, by which the petitioner has been granted 1st ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 and 2nd ACP from 19.07.2002. It is pleaded that by letter dated 14.12.2011, gratuity and leave encashment have been sanctioned and necessary communication has been forwarded to the Accountant General/Treasury Officer. 4. From order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that excess payment made to the petitioner has been ordered to be adjusted against the 2nd Time-bound Promotion from 19.07.2002, and the balance, if any, shall be adjusted from arrears of payment on account of 6th pay-revision. The impugned order dated 07.02.2011 would disclose that excess payment was made to the petitioner from 01.04.1981 to 18.07.1987. Twenty four years thereafter and, that too, after the petitioner superannuated from service, recovery/adjustment of excess payment is not permissible in law. The petitioner retired as class-III employee and only after his retirement a decision on recovery of excess payment has been taken, however, without a show-cause notice to the petitioner. Twenty four years thereafter and, that too, after the petitioner superannuated from service, recovery/adjustment of excess payment is not permissible in law. The petitioner retired as class-III employee and only after his retirement a decision on recovery of excess payment has been taken, however, without a show-cause notice to the petitioner. In the above facts, the impugned orders dated 11.03.2010, 07.02.2011 and 19.04.2011 must be held illegal [refer, State of Punjab And Others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) And Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 : 2015 (1) JLJR(SC) 323], and are quashed. 5. The writ-petition stands allowed.