JUDGMENT : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.1.2016, issued by respondent No. 2, vide which, his pension was recalculated and was reduced with retrospective effect from the date of his retirement on 30.6.2010, in view of the Government Circular dated 17.12.2013. Recovery of excess amounts paid, was also ordered. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that though he had challenged the entire action of the employer in Original Application No. 186/2016, before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Bench at Nagpur, he would now be restricting this petition to the extent of the action of the employer seeking recovery of excess amounts paid to him, which was on the basis of including the one step promotion increment available temporarily to persons working in the naxal affected/tribal areas. 4. Having considered the above stated submission, the issue that needs to be considered in this petition is as to whether the respondents were entitled to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner, after six years of his superannuation. This action has it’s roots in his deployment in a tribal area and his retirement from the said place. 5. We do not wish to enlarge the size of this judgment by recording the entire facts pertaining to the service tenure of the petitioner. Suffice it to say, in the backdrop of the admitted position, that the petitioner was working in the tribal area on 30.6.2010 and he was entitled for the ‘one step promotional increment’ extended temporarily, in view of the Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002. We have also noticed from the Government Resolution that such a one step promotion increment was extended to candidates only with the view of encouraging them with such incentive to work in the tribal/naxal affected area. It requires no debate that such a Government Resolution was introduced by the State of Maharashtra in the backdrop of the reluctance of employees working in tribal and naxal affected areas. 6. We have considered the grounds formulated by the petitioner in his Original Application, the reply on behalf of the State and the impugned judgment of the learned MAT in view of the Circular dated 17.12.2013. 6. We have considered the grounds formulated by the petitioner in his Original Application, the reply on behalf of the State and the impugned judgment of the learned MAT in view of the Circular dated 17.12.2013. We find that the petitioner would not be entitled for the one step promotion increment from the moment he returns from the naxal/tribal affected area. It is a coincidence that the petitioner has superannuated on 30.6.2010 while being in the tribal/naxal affected area. This, however, would not be a ground for interpreting the Government Resolution dated 06.08.2002 and the Circular dated 17.12.2013, in any ways, differently. It is specifically provided in the Government Resolution that the said increment is temporarily extended only as an incentive to work in such areas and would not be a regular addition to his pay scale. 7. Considering the above, the issue that needs to be considered by this Court is, as to whether the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned order of recalculating the pensionery benefits of the petitioner and seeking recovery of the excess amounts that were paid under the wrong assumption that the one step promotion increment would be a part of his salary on his superannuation. There is no dispute that such increment was included in his pay scale, when his pension was calculated and, therefore, he was paid excess retiral benefits and pension. 8. The Government Resolution and the Circular referred to above clearly indicate that an employee who superannuates while being in deployment in such area, would give him no right to have the inclusion of one step promotion increment in his salary on the basis of the principle of “last drawn salary”. In this backdrop, the impugned direction recalculating the pensionery benefits of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The order of the learned MAT calls for no interference to this extent. 9. We find that the learned MAT has turned down the grievance of the petitioner against the recovery of amounts paid to him towards his pensionery benefits for a period of six years. There is no dispute and the State of Maharashtra and the respondents have not taken a stand that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the miscalculation of the pensionery benefits or that he had played a fraud on the respondents and had manipulated his calculation of retiral benefits. There is no dispute and the State of Maharashtra and the respondents have not taken a stand that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the miscalculation of the pensionery benefits or that he had played a fraud on the respondents and had manipulated his calculation of retiral benefits. No laches or malafides have been attributed to the conduct of the petitioner. 10. Considering the above, the case of the petitioner would be squarely covered by the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar, [(2009)3SCC 475] and State of Punjab & Ors etc vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., [ 2014(14) SCALE 300 . In the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors etc vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc, (supra) it has been observed in paragraph No. 12, as under: “12. 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. (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”. 11. We have considered the impugned order of the learned MAT to the extent of upholding the action of the employer in seeking recovery of excess amounts paid, six years after his retirement. 11. We have considered the impugned order of the learned MAT to the extent of upholding the action of the employer in seeking recovery of excess amounts paid, six years after his retirement. We find that the said conclusion would not stand the test propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.12 in the case of State of Punjab & Ors etc vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc, (supra) and considering the earlier law laid down in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar (supra). 12. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.1.2016, issued by respondent No. 2, shall stand set aside only to the extent of the recovery of excess amounts paid to the petitioner with retrospective effect. Needless to state, if excess amounts have been paid since the date of the impugned order, those amounts will have to be recovered from the petitioner. 13. Rule is made absolute in the abovestated terms.