JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raunak Sahay, 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 order dated 05.07.2016 contained in Annexure-7 whereby the payment of Contributory Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 10,68,355/- after making deduction of Rs. 3,15,611/- i.e. the amount of A.C.P/M.A.C.P paid to the petitioner was directed to be deducted and payment of Rs. 7,52,744/- was made to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner joined on 19.02.1976 as an Assistant at Small Farmer Development Agency (SFDA), Giridih. Thereafter on 15.10.1990 District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) establishment committee decided to accommodate the petitioner on the vacant post of Head Clerk by order dated 14.11.1990. Based on office memo no. 3277 dated 01.10.2007, first and second A.C.P. were allotted to the petitioner. Based on Memo No. 10 dated 08.0 2013 third M.A.C.P. was allotted to the petitioner. Annexure-1 discloses that the petitioner alongwith several other employees were also provided the benefits of M.A.C.P. with this common order. The employees at Sl Nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6 have been provided with the financial benefits of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. and have retired from service. The petitioner has retired on 30.04.2016 while working as Principal Assistant from the Office of DRDA, Giridih. Vide letter dated 11.12.2015 of the Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand it was informed that D.R.D.A employees are not entitled to A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefits. The said action was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2016 by some of the employees of the D.R.D.A. wherein interim order has been passed on 14.0 2016. Pursuant to interim order dated 08.01.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 42 of 2015 all the Deputy Commissioners, Deputy Development Commissioners of the State of Jharkhand maintained the ‘status quo’ vide letter no. 1117 dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2016 but he was not paid her C.P.F. contributions and also two months salary for which she filed representation. 1117 dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2016 but he was not paid her C.P.F. contributions and also two months salary for which she filed representation. Vide memo dated 05.07.2016, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih has directed for payment of Contributory Fund of Rs. 10,68,355/- after making deduction of Rs. 3,15,611 i.e the amount of A.C.P./M.A.C.P paid to the petitioner while she was in service and has sanctioned amount of Rs. 7,52,744/- for payment. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing this writ application. 5. Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 30.04.2016. He submits that the impugned order has been passed after retirement of the petitioner. He submits that there is no mis-representation and fault on the part of the petitioner rather it was Department who issued A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. in favour of the petitioner and other employees of the D.R.D.A. He submits that the amount in question was started to be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 2007 itself. After subsequent time, the said order has been passed for recovery. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered with the judgment in the case of “Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 . He refers para 57, 58, 59 which are quoted here-in-below:- “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant 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 counteraffidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide 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 inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on judgment in the case of “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others “ reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He refers para 18 which is quoted here-in-below:- “18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on judgment in the case of “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others “ reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He refers para 18 which is quoted here-in-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. (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. Per contra, Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that wrong payment was detected and it was decided to recover the amount in question. He submits that it is well settled principle of law that after wrong notion of any payment is made the same can be recovered. He relied on judgment in the case of “V. Gangaram Vs. Regional Joint Director & Others” reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 . By referring para 7 of the said judgment he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order in view of the fact that the petitioner was wrongly paid the amount in question and on detection of wrong payment, the impugned order has been passed. 8. Regional Joint Director & Others” reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 . By referring para 7 of the said judgment he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order in view of the fact that the petitioner was wrongly paid the amount in question and on detection of wrong payment, the impugned order has been passed. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials available on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.2016. The impugned order has been passed on 05.07.2016 which is after retirement of the petitioner. It is also admitted position that there is no mis-representation and fault on the part of the petitioner in receiving the amount in question. It was the Department who decided to pay the A.C.P and M.A.C.P to the employees of the D.R.D.A. The amount in question was started to be paid w.e.f. 2007 itself whereas the impugned order has been passed in the year 2016 and this aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Syed Abdul Qadir” (Supra) and again this aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra). After interpreting position of retirement of the employees, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued directions in the case of “Rafiq Masih (Supra) in para 18 and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is fully covered with the direction made in para 18 (ii) of said judgment. In case of “ V. Gangaram” (Supra) controversy was with regard to applicability of two increments wherein it was held that arrears paid prior to 1985 shall not be recovered and excess amount from 1985 is liable to be recovered. In that case the employees were not retired whereas the case in hand, the petitioner has retired and thereafter impugned order has been passed. Thus, this judgment is not helping the respondent-State. In the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra) the retirement aspect has been considered at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. As a cumulative effect of the discussions made above and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law accordingly, impugned order dated 05.07.2016 is quashed. Thus, this judgment is not helping the respondent-State. In the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra) the retirement aspect has been considered at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. As a cumulative effect of the discussions made above and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law accordingly, impugned order dated 05.07.2016 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.