ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing the order contained in memo no. 1462 dated 12/06/2010 issued by respondent no. 2 whereby and where-under the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200, which was granted to the petitioner by way of 2nd A.C.P. has been cancelled and in lieu thereof the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-10,000 has been fixed in respect of the petitioner and a direction for recovery in one lump sum has also been made after retirement of the petitioner on 31/10/2006. Further prayer has been made to declare that the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 by way of 2nd A.C.P. and the same was rightly granted to the petitioner by order contained in memo no. 584 dated 01/03/2007 issued from the office of respondent no. 2. Factual Matrix : 2. The petitioner was appointed on 19.4.1973 in the cadre of Subordinate Education Service (Primary Branch). The petitioner was entitled for grant of 1st A.C.P. and 2nd A.C.P. on completion of 12 years and 24 years which was granted to him vide Annexure 2. The first A.C.P. was granted in scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 and the 2nd A.C.P. was in the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 vide memo no. 2341 dated 07/07/2005 issued by the Director of Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2006. After retirement the petitioner received retiral benefits and the pension was fixed as per the last pay scale. All of a sudden in the year 2010 vide order dated 12.06.2010, the Director, Primary Education passed an order of recovery from the pension and gratuity of the petitioner without following the procedures of law. Aggrieved by the same order, this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the order dated 12.06.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Tandon further argues that no order of recovery can be passed after retirement without following the procedures of law. In the instant case even without issuance of a show cause notice and without following the procedures of Rule 43 (b) the recovery has been ordered from the pension and gratuity which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Mr. Tandon further argued that issue is now no more res integra. In the instant case even without issuance of a show cause notice and without following the procedures of Rule 43 (b) the recovery has been ordered from the pension and gratuity which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Mr. Tandon further argued that issue is now no more res integra. This Hon'ble court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions have decided that no order of recovery can be passed rather the amount from pension and gratuity cannot be recovered without following the procedures of law. In the instant case the procedures of law has not been followed and as such the order dated 12.6.2010 is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. The A.C.P. which was granted to the petitioner continued for four long years and was never challenged. The petitioner was entitled for the pay scale which was granted to him and as such it cannot be said after retirement that petitioner was not entitled for the pay scale and the Finance Department was not empowered for rectification. In the instant case, it has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 12/06/2010 amounts to review of the order dated 07/07/2005 which has been done by the same authority. Director, Primary Education has passed the earlier order and the same was reviewed by Director, Primary Education, himself, which is also not tenable in the eyes of law. Mr. Tandon, further argues that petitioner is entitled for the pay scale which was given to him and as such there is no illegality in the order dated 07/07/2005 and in view of that, the order dated 12/06/2010 is fit to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Senior Standing Counsel I, assisted by Ruchi Rampuria, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is not illegality in the order dated 12/06/2010. Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey argued that Finance Department is fully empowered to rectify any illegal order. The order dated 12.6.2010 was passed on the advice of the Finance Department, if any amount has been paid illegally the department is empowered to rectify the same and in this case justifying the impugned order, Mr. Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey argued that Finance Department is fully empowered to rectify any illegal order. The order dated 12.6.2010 was passed on the advice of the Finance Department, if any amount has been paid illegally the department is empowered to rectify the same and in this case justifying the impugned order, Mr. Dhananjay Dubey argues that there is no illegality and rightly the order is passed. Petitioner is not entitled for the pay scale which was granted to him by way of 2nd A.C.P. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey further argued that going through page 30, as per the rules of A.C.P., it shows that petitioner is entitled for the scale of Rs. 7,500-250-12,000/- as per the A.C.P. scheme itself and as such the pay scale which was wrongly granted has been rectified and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Petitioner was entitled for the A.C.P. benefits that is 1st A.C.P. and 2nd A.C.P. which was granted to him as per his entitlement vide Annexure 2 in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- by way of first A.C.P. and Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/- by way of 2nd A.C.P. The said order was never challenged by the respondents and continued for four long years and that also after retirement. The petitioner retired in the year 2006 and the order of recovery was issued in the year 2010, four years after retirement of the petitioner. Nothing has been brought on record whether any proceeding was initiated under rule 43 (b) of the Pension rules, without adhering to the provisions of law the said impugned order has been passed. This Hon'ble court in catena of decisions which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC, page 210, Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules following position emerges: (i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC, page 210, Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules following position emerges: (i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. (ii) This provision does not empower the State to invoke the said power while the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding are pending. (iii) The power of withholding leave encashment is not provided under this Rule to the State irrespective of the result of the above proceedings. (iv) This power can be invoked only when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before. 6. Nothing has been brought on record whether petitioner was guilty of any charges or whether any provisions of Rule 43 (b) has been followed without adhering to the cardinal provisions of natural justice. The impugned order as has been passed is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the authority who has passed the order has also reviewed his own order. The earlier order dated 07/07/2005 granting benefits to the petitioner has been reviewed by the same authority dated 12/06/2010 is not permissible in the eyes of law. It has been held in case of R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State for India in Council reported in 1937 0 AIR (PC) 27 "that in a case in which after government officials, duly competent and duly authorised in that behalf, have arrived honestly at one decision, their successor-in-office, after the decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation, cannot purport to enter upon a reconsideration of the matter and to arrive at another and totally different decision." In view that the same authority is not empowered to review its own order, the petitioner is entitled for pension as per the last pay scale. Rectification in the pay scale after retirement amounts to rectification in the pension that is not permissible in law. 7. As a cumulative effect recovered of the aforesaid Rules/guidelines/observations/ judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the order contained in memo no. 1462 dated 12/06/2010. If any amount has been recovered, the same may be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. 7. As a cumulative effect recovered of the aforesaid Rules/guidelines/observations/ judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the order contained in memo no. 1462 dated 12/06/2010. If any amount has been recovered, the same may be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.