ORDER 1. The petitioner, a retired Platoon Commander reached to the age of superannuation on 31.7.2014, has approached this Court with the grievance that after his retirement he has been subjected to the recovery of the amount of Rs.68,531/- as indicated in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to him on 6.8.2014 (Annexure P-1), however, no details of the aforesaid amount has been shown in the document. That apart, at no point of time, the petitioner was ever issued a notice against such recovery or afforded an opportunity for explanation during his service tenure. Such recovery after retirement is patently illegal and unsustainable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [ (2015)4 SCC 334 ]. 2. Per contra, Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State supports the impugned recovery on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh [ AIR 2016 SC 3523 ]. 3. Heard. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner is subjected to the impugned recovery after his retirement through the issuance of PPO purportedly on an audit objection as indicated in the counter affidavit. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), has ruled in para 18 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 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. (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." 6. Though the aforesaid judgment was considered in the subsequent judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), and exception was carved out in cases where the employee had given an undertaking against any future recovery. However, in the instant case, it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioner at any point of time had given undertaking against the future recovery. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), is distinguishable and is of no assistance and the ratio of judgment in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), shall apply to the facts of the case in hand. 8. Consequently, the impugned order of recovery (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.68,531/- and refix the revised retiral dues of the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of accordingly.