JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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 petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 05.05.2016 whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur was directed to recover the arrears of salary paid to the petitioners for the period 07.03.1994 to 13.09.1995. 4. The petitioners have been appointed in Telco Urdu Middle School, Jamshedpur which is a Government aided minority school, on the vacant sanctioned post. The approval of their services by the State Government is there and that is why the petitioners were being paid the salary from the State Government from the initial date of appointment. In the year 1994 certain dispute cropped up in the managing committee of the said school for the removal of the Headmaser of the school and one fact of the managing committee of the school had put a lock in the said building and the building was unauthorizedly closed with effect from 07.03.1994. The then Regional Education Officer, Jamshdpur intervened in the matter and looking into the interest of the teachers, he vide letter dated 09.03.1994 directed the teachers and Headmaster of the school to mark their attendance in his office for the said period. The said letter dated 09.03.1994 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In view of the said direction, the petitioners marked their attendance in the office of the Regional Education Officer, Jamshedpur. The school reopened after 13.09.1995. The Regional Education Officer, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 20.07.1996 had recommended for payment of salary of the teachers of the said school for the period 07.03.1994 to 13.09.1995, as contained in Annexure-2. The petitioners repeatedly requested for payment of the aforesaid recommended amount. The petitioners were granted senior selection grade on completion of 12 years of service by order dated 02.03.2005, 12.03.2005 and 05.10.2005, respectively. The order by the Regional Education Officer, Jamshedpur was issued for cancellation of grant of senior selection grade to the employees of Telco Urdu Middle School. The petitioners repeatedly requested for payment of the aforesaid recommended amount. The petitioners were granted senior selection grade on completion of 12 years of service by order dated 02.03.2005, 12.03.2005 and 05.10.2005, respectively. The order by the Regional Education Officer, Jamshedpur was issued for cancellation of grant of senior selection grade to the employees of Telco Urdu Middle School. The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur directed the said officer to make an enquiry in this regard. The Regional Education Officer, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 18.10.2006 submitted report the that employees of the said school including the present petitioners are entitled to receive their salary for the period 07.03.1994 to 13.09.1995 and thereafter they will also be entitled to the benefits of senior pay scale. The attendance of the petitioners were already verfied. Some of the teachers in the meantime had moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3744 of 2000 seeking release of the arrears of salary for the period March, 1994 to 13.09.1995. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 16.12.2002. The Headmaster of the school had separately moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.161 of 2000 which was disposed of in favour of the petitioner of that case. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur directed for release of the salary for the said period vide letter no.1186 dated 29.05.2007, contained in Annexure-7. The petitioners were paid the arrears of salary for the period 07.03.1994 to 13.09.1995, however, by letter dated 05.05.2016, the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshdpur directed to recover the amount of Rs.19,68,951/- which was disbursed to the teachers of Telco Urdu Middle School, Jamshedpur on the ground of dismissal of C.W.J.C. No.3744 of 2000. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have moved before this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 5. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no fraud on the part of the petitioners. The officer concerned has directed the petitioners to mark the attendance thereafter the Government at its own has decided to pay the salary in question and the salary in question has been paid and on the strength of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3744 of 2000 the impugned order has been passed. He submits that the C.W.J.C. No.3744 of 2000 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the C.W.J.C. No.3744 of 2000 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the impugned order has been passed on 05.05.2016 and thereafter the petitioners immediately filed the writ petition on 16.06.2017. He submits that the application of the said judgment has erroneously done by the resondent authorities. 6. Per contra, Mr. Munnal Lal Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that for that period, the petitioners have not worked and that is why there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner has been paid salary on the basis of the attendance only without having worked for that period. He submits that the identical matter being C.W.J.C No.3744 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court and that is why the impugned order has been issued. He accepts this position that the petitioners have been paid the salary for the said period as stated in paragraph no.14 of the counter affidavit. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is admitted position that the Regional Education Officer asked the petitioners to mark their attendance in his office and pursuant thereto they have marked their attendance. Annexure -3 series is the document which suggest about grant of senior selection grade which is dated 12.03.2005. Thus, this order has been passed in the year 2005 wherein one of the document suggest that the petitioners are also entitled for the salary and thereafter the enhanced amount in view of such selection grade meaning thereby the amount in question was paid much earlier. There is no fault on behalf of the petitioners for receiving the salary for that period. The petitioners have not suppressed anything. The Government at its own decided to pay the salary for the said period and equity demands that such order at this stage is very harsh which cannot sustain in the eye of law. The recovery is also said to be after a long period. The petitioners have not suppressed anything. The Government at its own decided to pay the salary for the said period and equity demands that such order at this stage is very harsh which cannot sustain in the eye of law. The recovery is also said to be after a long period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih' reported in (2015) 4 SC 334 has considered the case of 'Syed Abdul Kadir v. State of Bihar' in paragraph no.12 of the said judgment and in 'Syed Abdul Kadir' case interpretation has been made by the Supreme Court in paragraph no.13 in case of 'State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih', which is quoted hereinbelow: “13. First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this Court in its judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir case recognised, that the issue of recovery revolved on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of the action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded, that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family. Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their medical requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their medical requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on the above consideration, we are of the view, that if the mistake of making a wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the same. However, if the payment is made for a period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee.” 8. The order of the C.W.J.C. No.3744 of 2000 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. That case was dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay and laches whereas in the present case, the impugnd order has been passed in the year 2016 and thereafter the petitioners have moved before this Court and filed the writ petition on 16.05.2017. 9. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, the impugned order will not sustain in the eye of law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.05.2016 is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. 11. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.