ORDER : 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the Office order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure-4) pertaining to cancellation the Time Bond Promotion/Selection Grade and office order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-7) by which the date of grant of the benefits under First Assured Career Progression has been shifted from 09.08.1999 to 21.03.2007 and for quashing the order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-8) whereby the benefits under the 2nd Assured Career Progression granted to the petitioner on 02.04.2004 has been cancelled and the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the memo dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-9) whereby the respondent no. 2 has sought for recovery of the alleged excess amount and the petitioner has further prayed for direction to respondents for restoring the benefits of First Assured Career Progression/Selection Grade and to grant the benefits of 2nd Assured Career Progression with all the consequential benefits with interest. 2. Sans of unnecessary details, admitted factual position as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined on the post of Store Keeper in the year 1980, in the Drinking Water and Sanitation (Mech.) Division at Jamshedpur. In the year, 1991 the petitioner has been granted Time Bond Promotion by the order of the respondent no. 3 with effect from 02.04.1990. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.03.2008, the respondent no. 3 granted the benefits of 1st Assured Career progression Scheme to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 and also the 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme was granted on the same date with effect from 02.04.2004 in terms of Resolution dated 14.08.2002. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2010 attaining the age of superannuation on the said post. The petitioner in the instant writ application has been aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure-4), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-7), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-8) and order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-9) which have been passed after retirement of the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ application that on the date of retirement from services, no departmental or criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuance of aforesaid orders, no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated due to non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuance of aforesaid orders, no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated due to non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order vide Annexure-9 has been issued without resorting to relevant provision of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time of first and second ACP, the petitioner has not resorted to any fraud or any misrepresentation fraud on the part of the petitioner so there was no justification on the part of the respondents for recovery of the amount without invoking the relevant provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule. 4. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned G.P.-IV for the respondents, during course of hearing, has brought the attention of the court to paragraph-4 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner was granted 1st time bound promotion wrongly vide letter no.108 dated 28.10.1991 because he was not able to pass accounts examination for the benefit of time bound promotion in view of Government circular no. 465 dated 13.02.1995 and finally passed Account Exam in the year 20.03.2007 but the benefit of time bound scheme has been cancelled on 01.01.1996 therefore, petitioner 1st time bound promotion granted wrongly was cancelled and ordered to re-correct by office order dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure-4 of the writ petition). The circular dated 13.02.1995 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit that the screening committee of the Drinking Water and Sanitation, Department dated 08.08.2012, the 1st ACP granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.03.2008 with effect from 09.08.1999 on the pay scale 50008000 is not accordance to the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 14.07.2012 and resolution dated 14.08.2002 and the letter dated 27.07.2012 issued by Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa. According to above government letter petitioner is entitled for 1st ACP when he qualifies the Account Examination which was passed by the petitioner on 20.03.2007 therefore he is entitled to get benefit of 1st ACP from the date 21.03.2007 on the pay scale of 4500-7000. According to above government letter petitioner is entitled for 1st ACP when he qualifies the Account Examination which was passed by the petitioner on 20.03.2007 therefore he is entitled to get benefit of 1st ACP from the date 21.03.2007 on the pay scale of 4500-7000. Therefore vide office order dated 25.08.2012 his earlier granted benefit of 1st ACP has been corrected and benefit of 1st ACP has been given from the date of 21.03.2007. It has been averred in the writ application that the screening committed held on 08.08.2012, 2nd ACP which was given to the petitioner vide office letter dated 28.03.2008 on pay scale 5500-9000 is not accordance with Finance Department. Therefore, the benefit of 2nd ACP granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. 5. Mr. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the State has vociferously submitted that since the petitioner has not passed the Account Exam which is condition of precedent for grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP). Therefore, the respondents have sifted the date of grant of the benefit of 1st ACP from 09.08.1999 to 21.03.2007, the date on which the petitioner has not passed the Accounts Examination so action of the respondents cannot be construed to be illegal or unlawful. The actions of the respondents have rightly passed so powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. After hearing of the respective parties at bar and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements as stated herein-below:- (i) Admittedly, the petitioner while continuing work as Store Keeper, 1st Time Bond Promotion was granted to the petitioner on 28.10.1991 and the petitioner finally passed Account Examination on 20.03.2007 but the benefit of 1st ACP has been granted from 09.08.1999 and 2nd ACP has been granted to the petitioner with effect from 02.04.2004 by the order dated 28.03.2008. The monetary benefits has been granted to the petitioner with effect from 21.03.2007. Though, notionally the 1st and 2nd ACP was granted in the year 1999 and 2007. The monetary benefits has been granted to the petitioner with effect from 21.03.2007. Though, notionally the 1st and 2nd ACP was granted in the year 1999 and 2007. (ii) The petitioner retired on 30.06.2010 attaining the age of superannuation and impugned orders dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure-4), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-7), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-8) and order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-9) have been passed after retirement of the petitioner. Admittedly, no proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules prior issuance of the impugned orders. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule which is quoted hereunder:- Rule 43(b). The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that:- (a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. (i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. (ii) Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. (iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment shall have been instituted in accordance with sub clause (ii) of clause (a); (c) The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. (iii) On perusal of the aforesaid provision, there is no doubt or debate that after retirement, the aforesaid provisions ought to be resorted for recovery of any amount of post retiral benefits. (iii) On perusal of the aforesaid provision, there is no doubt or debate that after retirement, the aforesaid provisions ought to be resorted for recovery of any amount of post retiral benefits. In this respect, view of this Court gets fortified in Full Bench decision reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1 : 2013 (1) JLJR 655 in the case of Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Moreover, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and Others as reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 : 2015 (1) JLJR (SC) 323, has been pleased at paragraph no. 18 to observe as under:- “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:- (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 7. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned orders dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure-4), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-7), 25.08.2012 (Annexure-8) and order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure-9) being not legally sustainable, are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.