JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.03.2011 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby direction has been issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.75,936/- the excess salary paid to the deceased husband of the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1999 to 30.09.2003, and for direction of quashing of the impugned order dated 01.10.2011 issued by the respondent no.2 for further recovery of Rs.58,906/- on the ground of excess payment made from March 1989 to June 1999. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to release the arrears of earned leave of 191 days amounting to Rs.15,7,721/-and for forthwith release of full and final family pension and other post retiral benefits and for direction to the respondent to release the recovered amount to the tune of Rs.75,936/- along with interest. 2. The challenge to the aforesaid impugned orders has been made, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner has been promoted and by virtue of the order passed by the competent authority to the post of Divisional Assistant he discharged duty to the said post of Office Superintendent and by virtue of the cancellation of the said promotion the respondent have passed orders of recovery of the so called excess amount where the promotion of the petitioner has not been done by virtue of any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the husband of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while continuing in services no action was taken by the respondents nor any proceeding was initiated and after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the action of the respondent for recovery is not legally permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the act of the respondent authorities is highly arbitrary and unreasonable in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. In support of the impugned orders in the counter affidavit it has been submitted that the action of the respondents are not illegal and contrary since vide order dated 07.07.1992 (Annexure-1to the writ application) such promotion is granted in anticipation of approval of Bureau of Public Enterprises and he was granted promotion on unsanctioned post. In support of the impugned orders in the counter affidavit it has been submitted that the action of the respondents are not illegal and contrary since vide order dated 07.07.1992 (Annexure-1to the writ application) such promotion is granted in anticipation of approval of Bureau of Public Enterprises and he was granted promotion on unsanctioned post. Therefore, petitioner’s husband was not entitled to get excess amount paid to him on the post of Office Superintendent and hence respondents have rightly and legally recovered the amount. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, the impugned orders passed by the respondents so far as recovery of the excess amount to the late husband of the petitioner, warrants interference. 6. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner being promoted continued to discharge his duties most diligently. Once he has discharged the duties it is not permissible to recover the amount from his post retirement benefits after the death of husband of the petitioner. Moreover, no fraud has been committed nor any misrepresentation has been made by the late husband of the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondents in directing for recovery from the post retiral benefits of the late husband of the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has been pleased to enumerate the instances relating to recovery of excess payment without fault of the recipient. In para 18 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold that: “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. (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.” 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, impugned orders dated 30.03.2011 and 01.10.2011 for recovery is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the recovered amount and disburse arrears of earned leave and all the admissible post retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.