JUDGMENT : By this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing validity of the order dated 04.11.2008 (Annx.1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby cash benefit of Rs.3000/- and coupon-gift of Rs.1000/- were given to each of the petitioners as Deepawali Gift on 19.10.2006. The respondents ordered an inquiry under section 55(5) & (6) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (6 of 9) {herein after ‘the Act of 2001’} without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioners and declared that the Deepawali Gift amount of Rs.4000/- was unlawful and the same should be recovered. The petitioners have challenged this recovery. The respondents filed a detailed reply stating that the recovery was in compliance of outcome of the inquiry initiated under sections 55(5) & (6) of the Act of 2001. The only document annexed along with the reply is a show cause notice seeking reply of the concerned Managing Director regarding the payment of Deepawali Gift in contravention of letter dated 07.01.1998 and letter dated 26.05.2001. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the benefit of bonus was paid in accordance with Circular dated 06.09.2006 and the same was in accordance with the Bonus Act, 1965. The learned counsel for the petitioners further drew attention of the Court towards order dated 04.11.2008 whereby it has been stated that the order dated 06.10.2006 on basis of which the benefit so conferred upon the petitioners has been withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such withdrawal at subsequent stage could not have any impact upon the benefit already paid to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that no opportunity of hearing or notice or any kind of adherence to basic principles of natural justice was made by the respondents in conducting the inquiry under section 55(5) & (6) of the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others (decided on 18.12.2014) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that where deviation from a larger policy is there then for the sake of policy correction the individuals affected by that policy need not be given an opportunity of hearing to rectify mistake in deviation of the policy. The learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the powers envisaged under section 55(5) & (6) of the Act of 2001 have been conferred to rectify such mistakes and all proceedings of recovery including the order impugned dated 04.11.2008 has been passed strictly in consonance with provisions of law after conducting proper procedure of law. 5. In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that any step taken by the respondents to impose a personal recovery was a personal infringement of their right, accrued out of circular dated 06.10.2006. 5. In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that any step taken by the respondents to impose a personal recovery was a personal infringement of their right, accrued out of circular dated 06.10.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the powers envisaged under sections 55(5) & (6) of the Act of 2001 clearly require the respondents to make a full inquiry and once such inquiry is being made then it was imperative upon the respondents to have given the affected party an opportunity of hearing or to defend the recovery order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing pleadings of the case as well as precedents of law cited by the counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that no recovery can be made from the petitioners, in consonance with para 18 sub-paras (i) and (v) of the aforementioned judgment after passage of such long time. 7. It is also taken note of that the authority had exercised the powers of granting the amount in accordance with the policy of the respondent-Bank dated 06.10.2006 and was, therefore, not virtually an unlawful order passed without any base line of Rules. This Court also observes that it is a meager amount of Rs.4000/- paid at Deepawali in 2006 and we are running in 2017 and any kind of recovery without giving any kind of opportunity of hearing or without adhering to principles of natural justice is illegal. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 04.11.2008 is quashed and set aside.