ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the respondent no.5-District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, pertaining to cancellation of pay scale which was granted to the petitioner in Graduate Trained pay scale on 13.02.1992 by virtue of passing the Training examination on 05.05.1986, whereby recovery of excess amount has been ordered without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to pay the Science Graduate Trained pay scale. 2. The factual matrix, in brief is that, in pursuance to advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teacher the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher by office order dated 16.04.1987. Since the petitioner passed his training examination on 05.05.1986, he was granted B.Sc. Trained pay scale by office order dated 13.02.1992 as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Accordingly, pay of the petitioner has been fixed in the said scale. The B.Sc. trained pay scale of the petitioner has been approved by the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. It has been averred in the writ application that in case of other similarly placed employee namely Sanjay Nath Deogharia and Ors., B.Sc. Trained pay scale was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said order, said Sanjay Nath Deogharia filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) being C.W.J.C No.1061 of 1994(R) and the order of cancellation was set aside by this Court as evident from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the light of the said order the State authority issued the office order dated 28.04.1995. But all of a sudden without giving any opportunity B.Sc. trained scale of the petitioner which was granted on 13.02.1992 was cancelled by the impugned order dated 29.03.2010 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.03.2010, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondent no.5- District Superintendent of Education, Simdega as contained in order dated 29.03.2010 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and amounts to colourable exercise of power. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondent no.5- District Superintendent of Education, Simdega as contained in order dated 29.03.2010 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, as at no point of time prior to passing of the impugned order opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, therefore, there has been breach of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Bihar (now Jharkhand) Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 could not be made applicable retrospectively so as to take away the accrued right and the benefit as has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order also suffers from vice of rule of estoppel. 4. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the decision reported in (2002) 3 JCR 273 (Jhr) (Chitranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), 2008 (1) JLJR 230 (Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors), 2017 (1) JBCJ 401 (Nil Kantha Mondal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and (2013) 12 SCC 580 (Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) (paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10). 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher not as Science Teacher, so without getting the appointment on the post of Science Teacher, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Science Teacher, therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and recovery of the excess amount. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner cannot claim the scale of Science Teacher having Msc./B.Sc, B.Ed degree, unless the petitioner is appointed against the said post. Learned counsel for the State further submits that petitioner after joining in the said post by suppressing the fact managed to get the undue advantage which was found illegal, therefore, the District Education Establishment Committee decided to cancel the illegal benefits as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State further submits that petitioner after joining in the said post by suppressing the fact managed to get the undue advantage which was found illegal, therefore, the District Education Establishment Committee decided to cancel the illegal benefits as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State submits that though the case of the petitioner is covered by the order dated 22.06.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2982 of 2010 along with W.P.(S) No.2059 of 2010 but liberty be given to the respondents to take action against the petitioner as deemed fit and proper after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the record, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.03.2010 as contained in Annexure-6, in view of the reasons stated hereinbelow: (I) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and he has been granted B.Sc Trained pay scale in the year 1992. After enjoying the aforesaid scale for the pretty long time, the petitioner has been visited with impugned order for cancellation of pay scale without any issuance of show cause which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and in view of breach of principles of natural justice. (II) It is trite law that accrued right cannot be taken away retrospectively by the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 29th March, 2010 by invoking Jharkhand Taken Over Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993 since prior to coming into force, the petitioners were granted B.Sc. Trained Scale. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and Others as reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter alia enunciate the legal proposition on the issue of recovery, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “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. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) 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. (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 reasons stated in forgoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 29.03.2010, vide Annexure-6, is hereby quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. 8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No.3937 of 2010 also stands disposed of.