JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - Matter comes up on Misc. Application No. 73468/2017, filed by the petitioner for deciding his case in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3401/2015 (Bhupendra Singh Lakhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), decided on 24th April, 2017. 2. The petitioner has pleaded in the said application that though he has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order of effecting recovery from the emoluments paid to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is not able to acquire the computer qualification, due to his age as well as other circumstances and at least, petitioner can be considered to be given appointment on Class-IV post with effect from his initial date of appointment on the post of LDC with effect from 16th July, 2010. 3. This Court is disposing of the writ petition with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, at this stage. 4. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner was working as LDC and he died while in service. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment after death of his father and on his application being accepted, he came to be appointed vide order dt. 16th July, 2010. 5. The petitioner was appointed in the Office of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bharatpur and he was to be paid a fixed salary of Rs. 6100/-. The appointment order had contained the condition that as per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependant of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (in short "Rules of 1996"), he would have to qualify the type test as per Rule 9 and he was to get his regular annual grade increment only after qualifying the type test. 6. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that respondents after considering the satisfactory services, confirmed him on completion of period of probation with effect from 16th July, 2010, and the petitioner was extended the benefit of regular pay scale in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20220 with Rs. 1900/- grade pay. The petitioner has pleaded that without any notice or calling explanation, the respondents have passed the impugned order dt. 5200-20220 with Rs. 1900/- grade pay. The petitioner has pleaded that without any notice or calling explanation, the respondents have passed the impugned order dt. 27th June, 2017, whereby it has been directed to recover the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner towards his pay fixation according to revised/regular pay scale, during the period of 16th July, 2012 to May, 2017, as the petitioner has not acquired the requisite Computer qualification. 7. The impugned order further places the petitioner in the fix pay of Rs. 6100/- per month with effect from 16th July, 2010 i.e. the initial appointment date, at Rs. 8,100/- per month w.e.f 1st September, 2014 and at Rs. 8,910/- w.e.f. 1st July, 2015. 8. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dt. 27th June, 2017. 9. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have submitted that the appointment was given to the petitioner on compassionate ground & the said order contained a specific condition that petitioner was to pass the computer qualification and if the petitioner had failed to acquire the said qualification, the Department was within its right to make recovery against the excess amount paid to him. 10. The respondents have further pleaded that Department of Personnel has issued a circular dt. 4th July, 2017, wherein it has been made clear to all the candidates who got the appointment on compassionate ground that if the candidate has not acquired the requisite qualification, he will not be entitled for regular pay scale and only fix salary will be paid to him. 11. The respondents have further pleaded that petitioner was inducted in service in the year 2010 and in last seven years, he has not been able to acquire the knowledge of computer and the employee without having such qualification, cannot be granted the benefit, as has been claimed by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the above mentioned application, requesting the Court that petitioner is not in a position to acquire the said qualification and respondents instead of placing him at fixed salary and not considering him regular appointment on the post of LDC, can at least consider him on Class-IV Post, as the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification of the said post. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dt. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dt. 29th January, 2018, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20316/2017 (Nagpal Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). Learned counsel has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 903/2012 (Piyush Saxena Vs. The Secretary, Labour & Services Department Secretariat, Jaipur) has decided the controversy by laying down the principle that if an applicant is not eligible to hold or continue on the post of LDC, which is initially offered to him, employer or the Department is under obligation to examine as to whether, such applicant can be adjusted against any other equivalent post of Class-III or the post in lower cadre of Class-IV to which the applicant was eligible and passing of the order of termination without examining his reemployment, cannot be held to be justified. 14. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner may be considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Piyush Saxena Vs. The Secretary, Labour & Services Department Secretariat, Jaipur (Supra), the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2149/2016 (Vikram Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dt. 18th December, 2016 and in the S.B. Civil Writ Peititon No. 20316/2017 (Nagpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dt. 28th January, 2018. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3401/ 2015 (Bhupendra Singh Lakhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) has also considered the similar controversy and the person who was working on the post of LDC, was required to be considered on the post of Class-IV from the initial date of his appointment or on the Class-Ill post, as the case may be. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents-Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC, has submitted that case of the petitioner is not to be governed by the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, as these cases were in relation to termination of the employment of the employees, who had not acquired the requisite qualification. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case the Department has only issued order of recovery of salary which was paid to the petitioner, by treating him as confirmed employee. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case the Department has only issued order of recovery of salary which was paid to the petitioner, by treating him as confirmed employee. Counsel further submitted that services of the petitioner have not been terminated so far and as such the petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to termination of his services and accordingly, she pleaded that petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 18. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 19. This Court finds that petitioner has specifically pleaded in the application that due to his age and other circumstances, he is not in a position to qualify/acquire the computer qualification and as such the Department is under obligation to consider his case for compassionate appointment on Class-IV Post. 20. This Court finds that the Division Bench in the case of Piyush Saxena (Supra) has categorically held that if for any reason, the applicant who is appointed on compassionate ground is not eligible to hold or continue on the post of LDC, which was initially offered to him, the Department is under obligation to examine, as whether such person can be adjusted against any other equivalent post of Class-III or the post in low cadre of Class- IV, to which the applicant is eligible. 21. This Court finds that once the petitioner himself has specifically pleaded that he is prepared to accept the appointment on Class-IV post, the Department is required to consider his case for such appointment. 22. This Court further finds that in the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3401/2015 (Bhupendra Singh Lakhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and order passed by this Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20316/2017 (Nagpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 29th January, 2018, similar directions have been issued. 23. This Court finds that the order which has been passed by the respondents on 27th June, 2017 is in respect of recovery being effected from the salary, which is already paid to the petitioner. 24. The respondents themselves treated the petitioner as confirmed employee and accordingly they granted him the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- w.e.f. 16th July, 2012. 24. The respondents themselves treated the petitioner as confirmed employee and accordingly they granted him the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- w.e.f. 16th July, 2012. This Court finds that since petitioner has performed his duties on the said post, the recovery of said amount will not be justified. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has laid down the broad guidelines to govern the cases of recovery, where payments have mistakenly being made by the employer in excess of their entitlement. The Apex Court has specifically held that recovery from the employees belonging to Class III & Class IV (Group C&D) will not be permissible in law. The relevant para 18 of the judgment of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) is quoted hereunder:- "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 refereed 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." 25. (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." 25. This Court finds that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the recovery from the salary paid to the petitioner is unjustified. 26. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions, submitted that petitioner would not make any claim on the post of LDC or any other equivalent post as petitioner has already failed to acquire the qualification of the said post. 27. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the recovery orders dt. 27th June, 2017 (Annex.2) & 4th July, 2017 (Annex. 3) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, on compassionate grounds for Class-IV Post from the initial date of appointment i.e. 16th July, 2010 and he accordingly be placed in the seniority list of Class-IV employees, by treating his appointment on Class-IV post from initial date of appointment. The said exercise may be taken within a period of five weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.