JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Supriya Minj, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of letter dated 23.07.2018 contained in Annexure-4 whereby a sum of Rs. 20,491/- per month has been directed to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner in 17 installments with 12 % interest. 4. The petitioner is an employee of Government of Jharkhand working as Accounts Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Garhwa. The petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk on compassionate ground on 22.02.1991 in the Gumla Division, Gumla in the Building Construction Department. By letter dated 20.11.2001, the cadre of the petitioner has been changed as Accounts Clerk from the Correspondence Clerk. The petitioner has been confirmed as Senior Accounts Clerk by letter dated 30.12.2003 and was posted as Senior Accounts Clerk in the Gumla Division, Gumla in the same salary and the salary was regularly paid to the petitioner. By letter dated 24.02.2009, the petitioner was transferred from the Building Construction Department, Division-II, Ranchi. The petitioner has been converted as Correspondence Clerk to Senior Accounts Clerk in the year, 2001 and till date there was salary fixed by the concerned authority. Pursuant to one Audit Report, order for recovery of Rs. 3,11,026/- at Rs. 20,491/- per month in 17 installments with 12 % interest was passed. Aggrieved with this order, petitioner has moved before this Court. 5. Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that authority concerned has fixed the salary of the petitioner. He submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and for that the petitioner has been unnecessarily punished that too without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that there is no concealiation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. He submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and for that the petitioner has been unnecessarily punished that too without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that there is no concealiation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that opportunity of hearing was required to be provided to the petitioner but without providing opportunity of hearing impugned order has been passed without adhering the rule of principle of natural justice. 6. Per contra, Ms. Supriya Minj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk on 20.11.2001 and his pay-scale should have been fixed as Rs. 4000-100-6000 from 01.01.1996 till 20.11.2001 but the office wrongly fixed the pay-scale of the writ petitioner as Rs. 4500-125-7000, that is why order of deduction from the salary of the petitioner, has been passed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the materials on record, the Court finds that in para 11 of the counter-affidavit, respondents themselves have admitted that the office has fixed the salary of the petitioner on higher side. It is apparent that petitioner has not taken any benefit by way of any concealiation or playing fraud. The impugned order has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of “State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others'' reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 in which in para 18, the Honble Supreme Court 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible n 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 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. As a cumulative effects of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned letter dated 23.07.2018 contained in Annexure-4 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.