JUDGMENT By the Court.—Petitioners-appellants, who are two in numbers, are before this Court, assailing the validity of the decision dated 24.1.2017 (Deena Nath Pandey and another v. State of U.P. and others), wherein learned Single Judge has refused to quash the recovery in question on account of the fact that excess amount has been paid and the said fact has been admitted before this Court and in view of this recovery is justified. 2. Sri P.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that as far as excess payment is concerned, therein they had no role to play whatsoever as bills in question were prepared in normal course of business and payment has been accepted, in view of this, after retirement of petitioner No. 1 and after lapse of long period more than five years amount in question could not be recovered. 3. In order to buttress the arguments that advanced before this Court, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), decided on 18th December, 2014 reported in 2014 LawSuit (SC) 1075. 4. The claim in question has been resisted by learned counsel for the State as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 6 by contending that once admitted position is that the excess payment in question has been made then non refund of money would be case of unjust enrichment and accordingly, the said amount in question should not be permitted to be retained by the petitioners and the same should be returned back to the treasury of the State. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation there is no dispute that petitioner No. 1 has completed his service carrier and has retired after attaining the age of superannuation and his pension has already been fixed. In reference to the petitioner No. 2, he is still in service. Excess payment was made in year 2005 and 2007 respectively and steps for recovery of the same has been initiated on 14.12.2016. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that once a substantial period has expired the excess amount should not be recovered from his salary. In reference to the petitioner No. 2, he is still in service. Excess payment was made in year 2005 and 2007 respectively and steps for recovery of the same has been initiated on 14.12.2016. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that once a substantial period has expired the excess amount should not be recovered from his salary. For this purpose reliance has been placed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) specially where recovery has been prohibited and one of the grounds mentioned as ground No. 3 proceeds to make mention that “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.” 7. In the present case, the case in hand is squarely covered by the para meters of aforementioned judgement, therefore, amount paid in excess, admittedly being of year 2005 and 2007 respectively and recovery in question admittedly being pressed in the year 2016, then the recovery cannot be justified and accordingly, in our considered opinion, recovery order deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned Single Judge in the present case has also taken note of Public Interest Litigation being PIL No. 38142 of 2016, wherein directions have been issued for taking action against excess payment. Directives issued certainly has to be complied with keeping in view the para meters that has been provided in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). We also clarify that in case the excess payment in question has been made based on fraud and misrepresentation, it is always open to make recovery of the said amount in question that is based on fraud and misrepresentation. 9. With this, the special appeal in question stands allowed.