JUDGMENT & ORDER : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Anuj Verman, learned A.C. to S.C. V appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents-authorities not to make any recovery from the petitioners and also not to place them in a lower pay scale in terms of Annexure-4, issued by the respondents authorities. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioners are working as Head Clerks under the respondents-authorities. Initially, the petitioners were appointed in Dairy Corporation, Bihar, Patna and posted in different places on daily wages in Class-III posts by one order contained in order dated 29.09.1977 and after completing more than 240 days, the Corporation had decided to regularize their services and they were regularized against Class-III post. It has been further averred that in the year 1984, the State of Bihar decided to absorb the Corporation vide resolution dated 10.02.1984 and it was decided to absorb the employees of Corporation either in the federation or in the respondents-State in its Animal Husbandry Department and a formal letter was communicated on 24.02.1984 and the names of the petitioners were sent to the Animal Husbandry Department for their absorption vide letter dated 07.02.1986 and the petitioners were formally absorbed and they were appointed in the Department of animal Husbandry of the State of Bihar against ClassIII post and their earlier period of service was counted to protect the pay of the petitioners vide order dated 15.01.1987. It has been further averred that in the meantime, some of the petitioners completed more than 10 years of service, if taken together under the respondents-Corporation and as regards the time bound promotion, the Respondent-State of Bihar in the Finance Department came out with one Resolution dated 30.12.1981 and it was decided that the employee, who had completed 10 years of service and did not get promotion should be given the next higher scale of pay by way of time bound promotion. The petitioners, who were initially appointed under the Corporation and subsequently absorbed under the respondents-State, were granted time bound promotion to the next higher grade after counting their services under the respondents-corporation. The petitioners, who were initially appointed under the Corporation and subsequently absorbed under the respondents-State, were granted time bound promotion to the next higher grade after counting their services under the respondents-corporation. It has been further averred that subsequently, after reorganization of the State, the services of the petitioners were placed under the State of Jharkhand and they were confirmed in 1989 and the petitioners were given the benefit of the first A.C.P. by the State of Jharkhand from 9.8.1999 vide order dated 8.12.2005. Thereafter, in pursuance to the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee, constituted under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, the Department of Animal Husbandry issued an order contained in Memo dated 30.01.2008, whereby scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- instead of scale of Rs. 4500-7000 has been provided to the petitioners after approval of the Finance Department. However, vide memo dated 3.08.2009 (Annexure-4), it was communicated that excess amount, which has been paid should be realized from the employees. Being aggrieved by the memo dated 3.08.2009 (Annexure-4), whereby it was communicated that excess amount, which has been paid should be realized from the employees and left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that once the monetary benefits is already paid to the employees and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, the amount cannot be recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents authorities have acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in not providing the petitioners the opportunity of hearing before placing their services in the lower grade. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the Resolution No. 2714 is related with clerks, who are in the Muffasil cadre (Common category), whereas, the petitioners are employees of Animal Husbandry Department, which is not Muffasil cadre and as per the resolution, it has been made clear by the finance Department that the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- will be applicable, where there is two stage of promotion, which falls in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. 5,000-8,000/- will be applicable, where there is two stage of promotion, which falls in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. Moreover, the realization of the excess payment towards ACP benefits has been empowered by the resolution dated 26.05.2005 by the Finance Department and hence, the plea of the petitioners are baseless. In view of the aforesaid statements, the prayer made by the petitioners are liable to be rejected and, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has submitted that herein, it is not a case of reversion of grade and hence, the plea of the petitioners are baseless. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners due to the following facts and reasons : - It appears from the facts of the present case that the benefit of the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- instead of scale of Rs. 4500-7000 has been provided to the petitioners after approval of the Finance Department at the behest of the State Government of its own. In the meantime, the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Normi Topno Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, (2007) 4 JLJR 466 subsequently applicable to the case of the petitioners. In the aforesaid decision, it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court that once the monetary benefits is already paid to the employees and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, the amount cannot be recovered. Similar view has been taken by this Court in case of Amar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 2 JCR 342 (Jhr). Recently, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of State of Punjab And Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (white washer) And Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 relying on various judgment including judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 has been pleased to hold in paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih (white washer) case as under:- 18. Rafiq Masih, (white washer) And Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 relying on various judgment including judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 has been pleased to hold in paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih (white washer) case 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 employers right to recover. 8. In view of the reasons stated in foregoing paragraphs and as cumulative effect of the aforesaid reasons and judicial pronouncement and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons, any action for adjustment/recovery from the petitioners and to place them in lower scale of pay, in pursuance to Annexure-4, being not legally sustainable, cannot be countenanced. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.