JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, j. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the monthly pension of the petitioner and for payment of arrears of 50% of 6th Pay Revision Committee which has not been paid to the petitioner and the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.9.2011 as contained in Annexure-11 issued by the respondent no. 3 and for quashing the order dated 28.12.2011 as contained in Annexure-12 issued by the respondent no. 7 whereby an order passed to deposit the amount of Rs. 6,04,218/- from the petitioner which has been deposited in the account of the petitioner towards the amount of pension, gratuity, earned leave etc. 2. The brief facts, as averred in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed in the Clerical cadre on 1.9.1977 in Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, Patna. The petitioner was posted at Katkarnsandi, Hazaribagh on the post of Clerk in the Department of Social Welfare after approval of the Cabinet vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his joining. An office order dated 9.4.1997 was issued by the department stating therein that the persons those who have been posted from the Board/Corporation in the department are also entitled to the same benefit which the Bihar Government employees is entitled to as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition and in pursuance to order dated 29.6.2004 issued by the Director, Social Welfare, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the petitioner and other have been adjusted/absorbed in North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and the name of the petitioner stands at serial no. 5. The said order has been issued after consideration of the letter dated 28.8.2003 issued by the Government of India, Women and Child Welfare Department and staffing pattern and also on the basis of recommendation of the Establishment Committee dated 17.6.2004 as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner retired on 30.9.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Clerk, Hunterganj Project informed the District Social Welfare and Deputy Collector (Establishment), Chatra as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In pursuance to order dated 16.8.2010, the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Chatra directed the Child Development Project Officer, Hunterganj for taking appropriate action for payment of pension and other benefits to the petitioner. In pursuance to order dated 16.8.2010, the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Chatra directed the Child Development Project Officer, Hunterganj for taking appropriate action for payment of pension and other benefits to the petitioner. Since, the repeated representation for payment of post retiral benefits did not yield any result, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2891 of 2011 which was disposed, of vide order dated 19.7.2011 with a direction to respondent no. 2 to take a decision in the matter for payment of post retiral benefits. In pursuance to the order dated 19.7.2011 in W.P.(S) No. 2691 of 2011, provisional pension amounting to Rs.97,010/- and Rs. 3,12,128/- towards gratuity and Rs.1,95,080/- towards earned leave have been paid to the petitioner as evident from Annexures 8, 9 and 9/1 to the writ petition. But to the utter surprise, the payment of post retiral benefits was stopped from the month of August, 2011 without any justifiable reason and thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation for payment of monthly pension. During the pendency of the writ application and order dated 21.9.2011 was passed by the respondent no.3 stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled for retiral benefits since he is on deputation in the Child Development Project and his services has not been adjusted as the petitioner is the employee of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. as per Annexure-11 to the writ petition and in pursuance to the order dated 21.9.2011, the Child Development Project Officer, Hunterganj, Chatra (Respondent No.7) issued an order dated 28.12.2011 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 6,04,218/- from the petitioner which has been deposited in the account of petitioner towards pension, gratuity, earned leave etc. as per Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary decision for stoppage of payment of pension and the impugned orders vide Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition, the present writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in not paying monthly pension is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in not paying monthly pension is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the issuance of order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the respondent no.7 directing for recovery of the amount paid towards gratuity, earned leave has been passed without any cogent reason that too without issuance of any show cause notice which cannot stand the test of tenability of law. 4. Controverting the assertions made in the writ application, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner is basically an employee of Bihar State Sugar Development Corporation Limited, Patna and he is not the employee of the State Government. The circular no.51/V dated 8.1.2010 of the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand also clarified that the employees deputed from different Boards, Corporation and bodies to the State Offices are not the employee of the State Government and the impugned order by the Director, Social Welfare dated 21.9.2011 has categorically stated the fact that the petitioner is not a Government servant hence he will not be covered under any retiral benefits. The photocopy of the aforesaid circular has been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. 5. A supplementary counter-affidavit dated 30.10.2013 filed by the respondent no. 1 wherein paragraph 8 has also reiterated the submissions made in the earlier counter-affidavit. 6. Another supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 dated. 22.4.2014 wherein it has been submitted vide Annexure-A that the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Women and Child Development, Government of India vide letter dated 22.8.2003 has directed all State Secretaries in-charge of ICDS Scheme Project revised the staffing pattern of ICDS Project. As per the direction staffing pattern for all projects (Both old and new) will, in due course become uniform as below:- S. No. Name and No. of the Post 1 CDPO/ACDPO (One) 2 Assistant/Statistical Assistant (One) 3 Supervisor (One per 25 AWCs) 4 Clerk/Typist (One) 5 Peon (One) It has further been submitted that in pursuance to the direction of Government of India, Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 1263 dated 29.6.2004 has adjusted the persons who were working in projects as per the aforesaid revised staffing pattern for all projects, by giving posting/deputing to different projects without changing service condition, so that in all projects number of employees should be within sanctioned limit. By this order no persons have been absorbed in the Government service because most of the persons named in the above memo are already in Government service. It is actual deputation order by way of adjustment as evident from Annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the word "Samanjasya" and "Samayojit" as used in Annexure-4 dated 29.6.2004 denotes to adjustment and not to absorption. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records this Court is not inclined to pass an order for payment of post retiral benefits but so far 'as impugned order dated 28.12.2011 vide Annexure-12 for recovery of Rs. 6,04,218/- towards gratuity and earned leave is concerned, the petitioner has made out a case for interference on the following grounds:- (I) The petitioner while continuing as in the Clerical Cadre, in the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited was posted at Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh on the post of clerk in the Department of Social Welfare and after being relieved vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner has joined on the said post in the year, 1997. Thereafter, vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the petitioner having been adjusted in the North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Government of Jharkhand continued on the said post till his retirement on 30.9.2010. Just prior to retirement letter dated 21.9.2010 by the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Chatra directing C.D.P.O.-respondent no.7 for taking appropriate action for' payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner was issued but since no pensionary benefit was extended to the petitioner approached in earlier writ petition W.P.(S) No. 2891 of 2011. Thereafter, payment of provisional pension, payment of gratuity and earned leave vide Annexures-8, 9 and 9/1 has been passed. The pensionary benefit has been subjected for the month of August, 2011 which has led to file writ petition vide Annexure-10 to the writ application. Thereafter, payment of provisional pension, payment of gratuity and earned leave vide Annexures-8, 9 and 9/1 has been passed. The pensionary benefit has been subjected for the month of August, 2011 which has led to file writ petition vide Annexure-10 to the writ application. Thereafter, the impugned order vide Annexure-11 dated 21.9.2011 has been passed by the respondent no.3 to the effect that the petitioner has been deputed in the State of Jharkhand but he has not been permanently absorbed hence, he is entitled for retiral benefits like State Government employees and further direction was issued for recovery of the amount as per Annexure-12 to the writ application dated 28.12.2011. So far as impugned order for recovery from the pensionary benefits from the petitioner is concerned admittedly no notice and show cause notice has been issued prior to taking action for recovery of the post retiral benefits. It is no more res integra that the prior notice is a must before passing an order visiting an employee with evil or civil consequences. In that view of the matter, the direction for recovery of post retirement benefits from the petitioner vide Annexure-12 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. (II) The question as to whether the petitioner can be treated to have retired as State Government employee is the moot point to be determined so as to enable the petitioner to get the pensionary benefits. The petitioners has laid reliances on Annexure-4 to the writ application where the order has been passed for adjustment of the number of employees where the name of the petitioner also finds place at serial no. 5 but the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents dated 22.4.2014 the word "Samanjasya" and "Samayojit" has been interpreted to be adjustment but not absorption. (III) In the writ application, the word adjustment/absorbed for the word "Samanjasya" and "Samayojit" has been used on the proper meaning of aforesaid manner and not absorption therefore, the word "Samanjasya" and "Samayojit" is used in Annexure-4 dated 29.6.2004 denotes to adjustment and not absorption. Moreover, the petitioner is admittedly an employee of the Bihar State Sugar Development Corporation Limited and not an employee of the State Government. The circular no. Moreover, the petitioner is admittedly an employee of the Bihar State Sugar Development Corporation Limited and not an employee of the State Government. The circular no. 51/V dated 8.1.2010 of the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand also clarified that the employees deputed from different Boards, Corporation and bodies to the State Offices are not the employee of the State Government since the petitioner is not a Government servant he will not be covered under the benefits of post retiral benefits. So far as impugned order for deposit of Rs. 6,04,218/- from the petitioner is concerned, same is liable to be interfered with because it is no more res integra that after retirement of an employee, no recovery can be made in view of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2015)4 SCC 334 [: 2015(1) JLJR (SC)323] in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others. 8. In the light of aforesaid decisions and as logical corollary, the impugned order for recovery of Rs.6,04,218/- warrants interference and the same is quashed and set aside but with regard to first part of the order vide Annexure-12 this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.