JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 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 on merit. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 18.02.2019, whereby, sum of Rs.4,93,288/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner from the amount of leave encashment due to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant in Deoghar Central Co-operative Bank after merger of the bank of the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The petitioner became an employee of Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner retired from the service on 31.05.2018. The petitioner made a representation on 20.08.2018 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank requesting him to ensure payment of retirement benefits. The petitioner received a letter dated 22.02.2019, whereby, he was intimated that the amount of post retirement benefits has been credited in the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner received another letter dated 22.02.2019, whereby, he was intimated that the amount of Rs.7,753/-, Rs.81,054/- and Rs.20,528/- has been deducted from the post retirement benefits of the petitioner since it was due against the petitioner. By another letter dated 18.02.2019, the petitioner was informed that the amount of Rs.7,06,200/- was payable to him under the head of unutilized leave salary and a sum of Rs.4,93,288/- was deducted from the amount of excess payment of salary paid to the petitioner for the period between April, 2012 to May, 2018. On deduction of gratuity, amount came to Rs.2,12,917/- and along with gratuity amount, a sum of Rs.13,78,142/- had been credited in the bank account of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 31.05.2018 and the impugned order of recovery has been passed on 18.02.2019. He further submits that in view of retirement of the petitioner, there should not be any recovery in view of the fact that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 31.05.2018 and the impugned order of recovery has been passed on 18.02.2019. He further submits that in view of retirement of the petitioner, there should not be any recovery in view of the fact that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He also submits that in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, the respondent-Bank has also admitted that there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated persons whose names have been disclosed in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, no recovery has been made against them, whereas, the petitioner has been punished for no fault on his part. He also submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 6. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “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 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. (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. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 submits that after merger of the Bank, it was came to the knowledge of the Bank that excess amount was paid to the petitioner and that is why the amount, in question has been recovered. He further submits that the order of recovery against some other persons have not passed, that will not help the petitioner. 8. On perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner retired on 31.05.2018, whereas, the impugned order has been passed on 18.02.2019. The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant. In paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, it has been admitted that there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra) particularly paragraph 18(ii). The other similarly situated persons, as indicated in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, have not been touched by the respondent-Bank and this fact has been admitted in the counter affidavit. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition succeeds. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.02.2019, contained in Annexure-5 of the writ petition is quashed. The respondent-Bank is directed to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.