JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "(a) The impugned order dated 17.04.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the Assistant Account Officer (Pension), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited may kindly be quashed and set aside and; (b) Further the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,10,374/- to the petitioner together with the interest @ 12% per annum and; (c) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant the basic pay of Rs. 970/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1987 with all consequential benefits and after making the correct re-fixation, the arrears of entire retiral benefits may also be granted to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be made in favour of the petitioners." 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labour (Class-IV) on muster roll basis on 25.06.1976 but was subsequently regularized. The petitioner is presently the employee of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (for short "RRVUNL"). The petitioner's fixation was made in the regular pay scale as per the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees' (Emoluments) Service Regulations, 1978 and he was allowed the regular pay scale of Rs. 240/- w.e.f. 01.04.1974. The respondents meanwhile, implemented Singh Sancheti Award and in compliance of that said award, the re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner was made in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. The benefit of selection grade was allowed to the petitioner in the next higher pay scale No. 2 i.e. Rs. 820-1520/- by the respondents. The petitioner was also allowed the selection grade vide order dated 01.04.1987 in the pay scale of 820-1520 on the same post of Class-IV. Further pay fixation was made in the pay band of Rs. 5220-20200 w.e.f. 01.09.2006, the petitioner retired from service on 30.08.2013. The respondents after retirement, raised an objection seeking recovery for the excess fixation made to the petitioner in the year 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014 in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc decided on 18.12.2014 . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014 in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc decided on 18.12.2014 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would given 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 decision referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize 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 or 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 employees would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweight the equitable balance of the employer's right to recovery." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State of Rajasthan has also passed a circular dated 17.08.2016, which reads as under: "Kind attention is invited to para 3(iii) of FD Circular of even number dated 22.07.2017 in which it has been mentioned that recovery must be made in all cases of over-payment barring few cases of extreme hardships. Whenever, there is a justifiable case of extreme hardhsip prior approval of the Finance Department must be obtained. This Circular was isued in compliance of the law declared by Courts and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 2. This Circular was isued in compliance of the law declared by Courts and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 2. The issue has subsequently come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in CA No. 11527 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11684 of 2012) wherein Hon'ble Court on 18-12-2014 decided a bunch of cases in which monetary benefits were given to employees in excess of their entitlement due to unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned competent authorities, in determining the emoluments payable to them, and the employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information/misrepresentation/fraud, which had led the concerned competent authorities to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The employees were as innocent as their employer in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments. 3. The issue that was required to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether all the private respondents, against whom an order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to be employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that 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 has summarized the following law situations, wherein recoveries by the employees would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Grade Pay upto Rs. 2800/- (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 is 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. (iv) Recovery is 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 is 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 cover. 4. As mentioned in para 3(iii) of FD circular dated 22.07.2014 the cases of extreme hardships as summarized in para 3 for waiving of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government Servants/Pensioners may be examined by Administrative Department. Thereafter, concurrence of FD (G&T) be taken." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3500/2006 in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh decided on 29.07.2016 , the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "10. In State of Punjab & Ors. etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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." (emphasis supplied). 11. The principle enuncitated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. 11. The principle enuncitated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable installments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years." 6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has undertaken that if any anomaly arises, the amount shall be recovered. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was a Class-IV employee and has already retired from service on 31.08.2014. Once at the time of retirement, no objection was raised by the respondents then all undertakings came to an end and any effort of the respondents to withdraw the excess amount paid due to wrongful fixation on 01.04.1987 requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,10,374/- shall be a blatant violation of the precedent law laid down in the Rafiq Masih's case (supra). In the present facts, the precedent law of Jagdev Singh (supra) does not apply as the undertaking of the petitioner had come to an end as on the date of his retirement i.e. on 31.08.2014 and moreover, the petitioner is a Class-IV employee who joined as a Casual Labour but was regularized as Class-IV employee at subsequent stage. Any recovery to the petitioner shall be detrimental to the cause of poor man who was retired and only served as a Class-IV employee with the respondents. The circular of the State of Rajasthan issued by the Finance Department as reproduced in the earlier portion of the judgment also clearly reflects that the condition of Rafiq Masih's case (supra) have been adopted by the State of Rajasthan. 8. The circular of the State of Rajasthan issued by the Finance Department as reproduced in the earlier portion of the judgment also clearly reflects that the condition of Rafiq Masih's case (supra) have been adopted by the State of Rajasthan. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 passed by Assistant Accounts Officer (Pension), RRVPNL is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed that if any recovery has been made, the same shall be returned to the petitioner with 6% interest for the period the money was kept with the respondents. It is made clear that the respondents shall be free to make any re-fixation but shall not make any recovery. Refixation is acceptable to the counsel for the petitioner.