JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through an order borne in Annexure A-3, the earlier thereto pay fixation of the writ petitioner became rectified, and, thereafter through Annexure A-4, an order for recovery of excess payment towards pay hence become strived. Consequently, the writ petitioner casts a challenge both upon Annexure A-3, and, consequent therewith order of recovery as borne in Annexure A-4. 2. The respondents contend that the revision of pay of the writ petitioner as made through Annexure A-3, and, consequent therewith order of recovery as borne in Annexure A-4 are completely valid, as the earlier thereto order fixing pay of the writ petitioner was made, upon misinterpretation of Rule 7 of Pay Rules 1998, rather prohibiting the awarding of two bunching increments instead of one increment as bunching benefit to the writ petitioner. 3. Since in a verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3351-3354 of 2003 titled as Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors versus State of Bihar & others, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 28 thereof, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter, has made expostulations of law, that unless (a) excess payments are made to a payee on account of misrepresentation or fraud practiced by the latter, thereupon excess payment are recoverable from the payee (b) however when excess payment, as, made to the payee rather are sequel of an erroneous interpretation of relevant Rules by the establishment concerned, and also, when the payee concerned has retired or is at the verge of retirement, thereupon, recovery(s) towards excess payment are not amenable to be effectuated from the payee. “28. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants-teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bonafide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inacation, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inacation, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, were are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 4. The afore declaration of law has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a subsequent decision made in case titled as State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , relevant paragraph 18 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- “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, summarize 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. (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.” 5. (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.” 5. Since, the respondents, do not contend, that the petitioner practiced fraud or misrepresentation upon the establishment concerned for hers securing the benefit, of, pay rather contend that the pre-revised pay, as, accorded to the petitioner was a sequel of misinterpretation of the relevant Rules, thereupon the extant lis is squarely covered by the paragraph 28 of the verdict supra made by Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. Further more, since alike the petitioner(s) in the verdict supra, the writ petitioner herein, has superannuated, and, hence would become beset with hardship in case this Court proceeds to validate Annexure A-4, thereupon this Court is constrained to quash the impugned Annexure A-4. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.