JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to pay the part payment of retiral dues amounting to Rs.1,03,379/- of her deceased husband, Swaraj Rai. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Husband of the petitioner filed W.P.(S). No. 3463 of 2014 for payment of retiral dues and arrears of salary. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, he died on 10.12.2014. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A. No. 1851 of 2015 for substitution of her name as the legal heir of late Swaraj Rai. The case was heard at length and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.07.2015, passed an order directing the respondents to release the admissible dues to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks. However, when the respondents did not comply the said order, petitioner filed Cont. Case (C). No. 836 of 2015 and the same was disposed of on 06.05.2016 on the wrong submission of the respondents that all payments were already made, though on the said date counsel for the petitioner was not present before the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 109 of 2017 for recalling/ modification of order dated 06.05.2016. The said case was disposed of on 19.08.2017 with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of her grievances. It is the specific case of the petitioner that inspite of the several orders passed by this Court, the respondents have stopped payment of retiral dues amounting to Rs.1,03,379/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that non-payment of admitted retiral dues to the petitioner is against the law and principles of natural justice. The husband of the petitioner retired on 31.01.2013 and subsequently died on 10.12.2014 and thereafter, an amount of Rs.1,03,379 was directed to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in catena of its decision has held that after retirement, no recovery can be made from Class-III and IV employees and in the instant, the husband of the petitioner has already expired. Hence, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and taken only to harass the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in catena of its decision has held that after retirement, no recovery can be made from Class-III and IV employees and in the instant, the husband of the petitioner has already expired. Hence, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and taken only to harass the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, as no counter-affidavit has been filed, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that he is not in a position to state as to why the petitioner has not been extended the full benefits of retiral dues. However, he very fairly submits that in view of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, no recovery is permissible after retirement of an employee. 6. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of the parties, this Court is of considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, inspite of several orders passed by this Court, amount so recovered from the petitioner has not been refunded as yet. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case N.D.P. Namboodripad (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Union Of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 502 held that, “if any excess payment has been made to the deceased appellant, it shall not, however, be recovered from the Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant”. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ] has held 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 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. (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 ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, I hereby direct the petitioner to approach the concerned respondents by filing fresh representation, along with copy of the order, annexing all the relevant documents on which she is relying upon, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and after providing ample opportunity of hearing to her, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of N.D.P. Namboodripad (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Union Of India & Ors (supra) and State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (supra), within a period of six weeks thereafter. 8. It goes without saying that if the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, the benefits as claimed in the instant writ application, be given to her, in accordance with law, within a further period of two weeks 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.