JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Order dated 10.09.2016, issued vide letter no. 02/Vividh 1002/16-4110 (Annexure-7) as also the letter dated 10.09.2016 (Annexure-IA to the supplementary affidavit) by which respondents have passed an order for recovery of amount from his Pension and Gratuity against house rent though petitioner is not residing in government accommodation. Petitioner has further prayed for monetary benefits as per recommendation of VIIth Pay Revision and for refund of the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- which has been deducted from his account, with penal interest. 3. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner was occupying any quarter. Merely on a complaint, that too of the year 2003, respondents have acted upon. In the entire service career, no proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner for illegally occupying the government quarter. Learned counsel further argues that he was never occupying any government quarter illegally. 4. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as petitioner was illegally occupying government quarter in view of Government Circular, the amount has to be recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-B of the counter affidavit and submits that in view of Government Resolution, the rent for illegally occupying the government quarter can be recovered from the retiral benefits and even from the gratuity. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, I find case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly respondents have merely acted upon the complaint made by one of the employees of the department in the year 2003. In the entire service career of the petitioner, neither the said complaint was ever acted upon nor any proceeding was initiated against him. It was only after retirement, recovery from the retiral benefits were ordered by the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Gorakhpur University & Others Vs. Dr. In the entire service career of the petitioner, neither the said complaint was ever acted upon nor any proceeding was initiated against him. It was only after retirement, recovery from the retiral benefits were ordered by the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Gorakhpur University & Others Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 591 has clearly held as under: “This court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits.” 2. Before coming to any conclusion, it is expedient in the interest of justice to refer the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein the recoveries in following circumstances has been declared 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. 3. In the instant case, recovery has been made from a Class-IV employee on the ground that the employee was occupying the government quarter illegally, which is totally denied by the petitioner and no document has been brought on record to prove such misconduct. 3. In the instant case, recovery has been made from a Class-IV employee on the ground that the employee was occupying the government quarter illegally, which is totally denied by the petitioner and no document has been brought on record to prove such misconduct. 4. In view of facts as well as law narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents are not justified in their action of recovery of amount and the same is condemned in view of Judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, guidelines, judicial pronouncements this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of circumstances mentioned hereinabove in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih & others and as such impugned Order dated 10.09.2016, issued vide letter no. 02/Vividh 1002/16-4110 (Annexure-7) as also the letter dated 10.09.2016 (Annexure-IA to the supplementary affidavit) by which respondents have passed an order for recovery of amount from his Pension and Gratuity, are hereby quashed and respondents are further directed to refund the amount already recovered from retiral benefits of the petitioner. Needless to say, if any amount has been recovered pursuant to impugned order, the same must be refunded to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.