JUDGMENT : All the writ petitions have been preferred by same petitioner and are connected to each other and as such all have been tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. On 05.09.2009, respondents issued order of recovery of a sum of Rs.6,53,041/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has been constraint to move this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 5760 of 2009. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that order of recovery dated 05.03.2009 is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel argues that admittedly petitioner was confirmed on 02.02.1980 as an Accounts Clerk and since then he has been rendering his services to the satisfaction of the respondents authorities as an Accounts Clerk. Learned counsel very emphatically argues that it was only in the year 2009, the cadre of the petitioner was disputed and order of recovery was passed for deduction of an amount of Rs.6,53,041/- from salary of the petitioner and after retirement from the retiral benefits. Learned counsel further argues that as the respondent authorities all along have accepted cadre of the petitioner as of Accounts Clerk and petitioner has been paid salary of the Accounts Clerk, on no count, order of recovery could have been passed. It has further been argues that even the proceedings initiated after retirement is not tenable as it was not initiated under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules. No notice was ever given to the petitioner regarding initiation of any proceedings. Learned counsel further argues that in view of that, the order dated 05.03.2009 should be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to refund entire amount which has been recovered from salary of the petitioner as well as from the retiral benefits. Learned counsel further argues that in view of Notification dated 06.08.2002 (Annexure-13, Page-12 of the rejoinder), petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.730 – 1,080 as an Accounts Clerk. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel in W.P.(S) No. 5760 of 2009, Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey in W.P.(S) No. 4916 of 2016 and Mr. Rakesh Sahi, in W.P.(S) No. 2706 of 2009, appear on behalf of the respondents. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel in W.P.(S) No. 5760 of 2009, Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey in W.P.(S) No. 4916 of 2016 and Mr. Rakesh Sahi, in W.P.(S) No. 2706 of 2009, appear on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State justifying the impugned order argues that petitioner had misrepresented before the authorities regarding pay scale for which he was entitled and the cadre to which he was appointed. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and submits that there is a finding of the enquiry officer that petitioner played fraud on the department and as such impugned action has been taken against him and amount has been ordered to be recovered from salary as well as retiral benefits as petitioner was not entitled for the same. Learned counsel further argues that order of recovery was passed in view of order passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1579 of 1992 (R) and as such respondents have acted in compliance of order of the Hon’ble Court and on this score also, impugned order is justified. It has further been argued by Mr. Anil Kumar that since there was stay order of the High Court and as such no order of recovery was passed and it is only after dismissal of the writ petition in the year 1999, order of recovery has been issued in the year 2009. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (i). The service of the petitioner was confirmed as an Accounts Clerk on 02.02.1980. Petitioner all along has been drawing scale of pay of an Accounts Clerk, which was accepted by the respondents authorities. (ii). Petitioner retired on 31.05.2010. No proceeding was ever initiated during the service period of the petitioner. It was only after retirement a proceeding was initiated without any notice to the petitioner. The said proceeding admittedly was not initiated under Section 43-B of the Pension Rules. (iii). Any proceeding which is dehors the rule, is not tenable in the eyes of law. (iv). No proceeding was ever initiated during the service period of the petitioner. It was only after retirement a proceeding was initiated without any notice to the petitioner. The said proceeding admittedly was not initiated under Section 43-B of the Pension Rules. (iii). Any proceeding which is dehors the rule, is not tenable in the eyes of law. (iv). The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents is also not accepted by this Court that in view of stay order they could not pass the order of recovery. From perusal of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1579 of 1992 (R), it appears that Court had given a direction for making payments to the petitioner in the pay scale to which he was already drawing and it was further observed that in case writ petition fails, the respondents are entitled to adjust the same from salary of the petitioner. The writ petition subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.08.1999. No order was passed for almost 10 years. It was only in the year 2009 order of recovery has been passed i.e. after more than ten years. No reasons have been assigned for not passing orders for 10 long years. (v). Petitioner, a Grade-III employee, was deprived of his legal rights of getting retiral benefits and an amount to the tune of approx. Rs.6.5 Lac. were ordered to be recovered without any substance. The arguments advanced by learned counsel regarding findings of fraud is also not accepted to this Court as the proceeding itself was not tenable in the eyes of law. (vi). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rs.6.5 Lac. were ordered to be recovered without any substance. The arguments advanced by learned counsel regarding findings of fraud is also not accepted to this Court as the proceeding itself was not tenable in the eyes of law. (vi). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , in paragraph-18 has clearly held that the recoveries in following circumstances 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 cases, 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 outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. (vii). Recovery from an employee is not permissible in law where the concerned employee is due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Petitioner was to superannuate in the year 2010 and the order of recovery was passed in the year 2009 from a 3rd Grade employee, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The said order of recovery is not at all tenable in the eyes of law and as such order dated 05.03.2009 is fit to be quashed and set aside. (viii). In the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Normi Topno Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2007(4) JLJR 466 , it has clearly been held that once the monetary benefits is already paid to the employee and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, the amount cannot be recovered. Similar view has been taken in the case of Amar Nath Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2007(4) JLJR 466 , it has clearly been held that once the monetary benefits is already paid to the employee and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, the amount cannot be recovered. Similar view has been taken in the case of Amar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2004(2) JCR 342 (Jhr.). Admittedly petitioner was working as an Accounts Clerk from 02.02.1980 and his services was confirmed on 02.02.1983 against the said post. 8. As a sequitur of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, guidelines, judicial pronouncements this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for refund of entire recovered amount presuming him to be Accounts Clerk in view of order of confirmation dated 24.07.2003 (Annexure-7). Consequently, petitioner is also entitled for all consequential benefits. Needless to say respondents shall consider for fixation of pension and other retiral benefits after refunding recovered amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Whatever amount petitioner has not been paid till date, shall be paid to him in accordance with law. Let the amount be refunded within a period of four weeks. As far as transfer posting is concerned, since petitioner has already retired, the same is not pressed. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand allowed. 10. As a sequel thereof, all the Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.