JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned letter No. 1867 dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure 8) issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Saraikela Kharsawan by which an amount of Rs. 2,59,224/- has been ordered to be recovered. Factual Matrix 3. Sans details, the facts as averred in the writ petition, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide memo No. 895 dated 21.02.1983 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum, Chaibasa and was posted in Middle School, Kulu Patanga Adityapur, (Singhbhum) presently, District Saraikella Kharsawan in B.Sc. Untrained scale. After acquiring of the teacher training, the petitioner was granted B.Sc. Trained pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- as per rules, with effect from 24.06.1992. On account of 12 years of satisfactory service in the B.Sc. Trained pay scale was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 16.03.2004 vide Memo No. 1596 dated 25.08.2006. Subsequently, vide impugned letter No. 1867 dated 23.10.2015, issued by District Superintendent of Education, Saraikella Kharsawan an amount of Rs. 2,59,224/- was shown to be recoverable against the name of the petitioner on the basis of audit objection. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that it is based upon the Audit Report for the year 1991-92 to 2011-12 of Deputy Secretary-cum-Accounts Controller Finance (Audit) Department, Jharkhand. However, no apparent reason has been given for such recovery. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the respondents authorities, which was duly received in the office of respondents on 05.07.2016 but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. It is the further case of the petitioner that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1631 of 2016 and other analogous cases in which this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2016 was pleased to quash the impugned order. The petitioner has already retired from services on 31.01.2017. 4. Mr. Bhanu Kumar assisted by Mrs. Bharti Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents basing on the audit objection in directing the recovery from the pay of the petitioners sans legal permissibility on the ground that the scale of pay which have been paid to the petitioner for decades are being sought to be unilaterally disturbed by the respondents on the ground of audit objection. Even otherwise, under the common rule governing monetary issues, no recovery process is permissible after lapse of several years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that relevant scale of pay drawn by the petitioner was approved by the competent authorities and there is no element of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in case of Ashok Kumar Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. which was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2016 and submitted that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the case of Arbind Bhushan Dey and Ors Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. and anoalogous cases reported in 2009 (1) JCR 513 [: 2009(1) JLJR 388] wherein it has been held that on acquisition of qualification of training, the person would be entitled to draw the trained scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the recovery which has been sought for, made on the audit objection, cannot be legally permissible without adhering due process of law. The issues are no more res integra as in case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [: 2015(1) JLJR (SC)323] the issue has already been set at rest. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently opposed the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on completion of the teacher’s training, the trained scale of pay has been granted by the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, who is not empowered to grant the said scale because the District Education Establishment Committee is empowered to grant Graduate Science Trained Teacher Scale and the said scale was wrongly granted by the District Superintendent of Education and as such the said scale can be rectified and amount illegally paid to the petitioner, can be recovered. Therefore, as per finding of the audit report, the recoverable amounts have been directed to be recovered from the petitioner as well as the action of the respondents cannot be construed to be illegally or unauthorized or unjustified. 6. Therefore, as per finding of the audit report, the recoverable amounts have been directed to be recovered from the petitioner as well as the action of the respondents cannot be construed to be illegally or unauthorized or unjustified. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order of recovery is not in accordance with law and is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. In the case in hand, the petitioner was granted trained scale from the date of acquisition of teachers training, therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity in granting of trained scale to the petitioner on the date of acquisition of teachers training. Moreover, the unilaterally and ex-parte order basing on the audit report to recover the substantial amount from the pay of the petitioner sans legal permissibility. Moreover, particularly when there is no misrepresentation nor any element of fraud played by the petitioner for getting the trained scales of pay. The benefit of the trained scale has been granted to the petitioner more than two decades back and the petitioner has superannuated on 31.01.2017. The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Normi Topno Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 466 , fully covers the case of the petitioner. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court that once the monitory benefits is already paid to the employees long back and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, the amount cannot be recovered. Similar view has been taken by this Court in case of Amar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004 (2) JCR 342 9 (Jhr.) [: 2004(4) JLJR 439 ] The issue regarding recovery has already been set at rest by the Apex Court in catena of decisions and the issue is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Sayed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475 [: 2009(2) JLJR (SC)32], Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supple. (1) SCC 18, Shayam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (2) SCC 521 , Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 416 , Punjab National Bank Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475 [: 2009(2) JLJR (SC)32], Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supple. (1) SCC 18, Shayam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (2) SCC 521 , Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 416 , Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh reported in 2006 (8) SCC 647 , Purshottam Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2006 (11) SCC 492 , Bihar SEB Vs. Bijay Bahadur, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 99 and State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) & Ors, reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 [: 2015 (1) JLJR (SC) 323] and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs State of Uttrakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (4) JCR 144 (SC) [: 2012(4) JLJR (SC)93] has given a guideline wherein it has been held that recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and settled principle of law, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of recovery dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure-8) is illegal and arbitrary and as such, is hereby quashed and set aside. The amount, if not recovered, would not be recovered from the petitioner and if already recovered, the said amount shall be refunded to the petitioner immediately and forthwith. 8. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.