JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 27.04.2016 whereby a sum of Rs. 49,099/- has been recovered from the amount of earned leave amount payable to the petitioner and for making payment of recovered amount and also for quashing order dated 10.04.2015 which stipulates that efficiency bar increment payable to the petitioner was to be given w.e.f 01.01.1998 but the same was given to the petitioner w.e.f 19.01.1997. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed as Peon on 01.10.1979 in the Department of Industry and after rendering satisfactory service of about four decades superannuated on 30.04.2015. After retirement, entire pensionary benefit was paid, save and except the amount of leave encashment. Being aggrieved the petitioner represented before the respondents for payment towards leave encashment and pursuant thereto the respondents have come with an order as contained in Memo dated 27.04.2016, wherein it has been informed that a sum of rs. 49,099/- has been paid to the petitioner in excess towards wrong fixation of pay-scale of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner confining the prayer, submitted that impugned order of recovery is not legally sustainable in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafique Mashi (White Washer) and others as reported in 2015 (1) JBCJ 318. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that action on the part of the respondents in directing for recovery of the amount after retirement without resorting to recovery proceeding is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand as reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R 1. Therefore, action on the part of the respondents is not legally sustainable. 5. Controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner all the post retiral dues have been paid. However, the amount of earned leave encashment was withheld for sometime in order to verify the correct and final account of the petitioner. 5. Controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner all the post retiral dues have been paid. However, the amount of earned leave encashment was withheld for sometime in order to verify the correct and final account of the petitioner. It has been submitted the letter dated 27.04.2016 itself clarifies and justifies the deduction of the amount as detailed therein. It has been submitted that during the salary fixation verification of the petitioner, it was deducted that the benefit extended to the petitioner was inadvertently allowed w.e.f 29.01.1997 in place of 01.01.1998. It has been submitted that as soon as the aforesaid anomaly in pay-fixation was detected by the department, the same was rectified. Accordingly, office order issued vide memo dated 10.04.2015. 6. Mrs. Neelam Tiwari, J.C to learned Sr. S.C. I submitted that recovery of Rs. 49,099/- was made from the leave encashment of the petitioner in terms of the government norms and the same is justified. The salary paid to the petitioner in terms of the above said pay-fixation was wrongly extended as such the same was recoverable from the petitioner. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements : (I). Admittedly, after rendering about four decades of unblemished service, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015. During his service tenure, neither any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor any criminal case was ever initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, as per Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the respondents are bereft of any jurisdiction to recover the aforesaid amount from the leave encashment of the petitioner. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to quote Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules: Rule 43(a). XXX XXX (b). Therefore, as per Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the respondents are bereft of any jurisdiction to recover the aforesaid amount from the leave encashment of the petitioner. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to quote Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules: Rule 43(a). XXX XXX (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 a 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). xxxx xxxx xxxx (c). xxxx xxxx xxxx (ii). From the aforesaid provision, it would be crystal clear that after retirement, no recovery can be made without initiation of departmental proceeding unless delinquent is guilty of pecuniary loss caused to the government has been initiated till the date of retirement. Therefore, recovery on the part of the respondents without resorting to any departmental proceeding would be violative of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. (iii). The aforesaid legal position has no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra). View of the this case gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Rafique Mashi (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order at Annexure 1 to the writ application, so far recovery of amount of Rs. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra). View of the this case gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Rafique Mashi (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order at Annexure 1 to the writ application, so far recovery of amount of Rs. 49,099/- is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the said amount within a period of eights weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.