ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 17/2/2003 (Annex.7) and orders dated 6/10/2001 (Annex.1) and 15/10/1999 (Annex.4), whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected and selection grade granted to the petitioner on 19/11/1993 has been postponed to 17/8/1996, respectively. 2. The petitioner was granted selection grade w.e.f. 19/11/1993 on completing 15 years’ service. The petitioner retired on 31/3/1999, thereafter, by order dated 6/10/2001 (Annex.1), the selection grade granted to the petitioner was ordered to be withdrawn and the same was postponed to 17/8/1996. Further orders were passed that amount paid in excess to the petitioner be recovered. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4628/2001 which was allowed by order dated 11/7/2002 directing the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed his representation, which representation came to be rejected by order dated 17/2/2003 (Annex.7). 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in ordering for recovery from the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had retired and after retirement the order impugned has been passed, which order is contrary to the law laid down by Honb’le Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors. : (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the respondents have passed a speaking order and on finding that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of selection grade in the year 1993, the same was rightly postponed to the year 1996 and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that that the petitioner was granted selected grade in the year 1993, he retired on 31/3/1999 and the order impugned (Annex.1) was passed on 6/10/2001 ordering for postponing the order of grant of selection grade and for recovery of the amount paid in excess. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) after considering various judgments relating to the recovery of excess payment made, observed as under: “18. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) after considering various judgments relating to the recovery of excess payment made, observed 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, summarize 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.” 8. The above directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordering for impermissibility of recovery included recovery from the retired employees and excess payment made for a period in excess of five years. On both the counts as indicated in the above judgment, the recovery from the petitioner cannot be made. 9. In view of the above, the order dated 6/10/2001 passed by the respondents to the extent of ordering recovery from the petitioner and order dated 17/2/2003 (Annex.7) rejecting the representation of the petitioner qua recovery part cannot be sustained and same are, therefore, quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.