JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar, CJ.) : [1] Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2022 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.574 of 2021 is subjected to challenge in these two appeals. Writ Appeal No.121 of 2022 was filed by the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, respondent No.1 in the said writ petition; while Writ Appeal No.126 of 2022 was filed by the State of Manipur and the Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur, respondents No. 2 and 3 in the said writ petition. By the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to refund the deducted Gratuity and Dearness Relief, amounting to Rs.3,11,847/-, to the writ petitioner within a time frame. This relief was granted on the ground that the deductions made from her Gratuity and Dearness Relief accounts were illegal and unsustainable in law. [2] Heard Mr. Samarjit S., learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for the appellant in WA No.121 of 2022; Ms. Ch.Sundari Devi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants in WA No.126 of 2022; and Mr. Ch.Robinchandra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the writ appeals, the writ petitioner. [3] Smt. Kangabam Tomba Devi, respondent No.1 herein, was appointed as a Primary/Matriculate Teacher, vide order dated 15.06.1983 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Therein, her salary was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.470-15-575-EB-20-735-25-860/-per month, plus DA and other allowances admissible under the rules, with effect from 01.07.1983. Upon acquiring a higher qualification, her salary was increased by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, vide order dated 05.03.1992. Thereby, she was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.575-1050/-(pre-revised) with retrospective effect from 01.07.1983. Again, by order dated 08.11.2002, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, enhanced her scale of pay, pursuant to Government Notification dated 07.09.1999, and she was extended the Trained Graduate/Trained Primary Teacher scale of pay with effect from 07.09.1999. Her scale of pay at this stage was fixed as Rs.4500-7000/-. She was then given the enhanced Trained Senior scale upon completion of 12 years of regular service in the grade, vide order dated 17.11.2003 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Her scale of pay was fixed as Rs.5000-8000/-with effect from 29.10.1999. Her scale of pay at this stage was fixed as Rs.4500-7000/-. She was then given the enhanced Trained Senior scale upon completion of 12 years of regular service in the grade, vide order dated 17.11.2003 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Her scale of pay was fixed as Rs.5000-8000/-with effect from 29.10.1999. The scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/-was revised to Rs.9300-34,800/-plus grade pay of Rs.4200/-with effect from 01.01.2006, vide Notification dated 05.05.2010 of the Government of Manipur and her pay was fixed at Rs.11,540/-plus Rs.4200/-GP per month with effect from 01.01.2006. [4] It may be noted that at the time the writ petitioner entered service, she was still an undergraduate being in B.A. 1st year. Thereafter, she acquired higher educational qualification and was granted higher scale of pay basing on her qualification. She attained the age of superannuation and retired from service with effect from 30.06.2010. Order dated 23.09.2010 was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, in recognition of this fact. The office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, issued a Pension Payment Order stating that she would be entitled to receive Rs.6600/-per month as pension with effect from 01.07.2010. Therein, under the caption ‘Special Remarks of Accounts Officer’, it was noted that her Gratuity amount stood at Rs.2,40,570/-but recovery of overpayment of pay and allowances to the tune of Rs.3,11,847/-had to be effected, leaving a negative balance of Rs.71,277/-which was to be recovered from the Dearness Relief admissible to her from time to time. The Dearness Allowance payable to her was quantified at Rs.1,37,520/-and after deduction of the balance dues of Rs.71,277/-, she was held entitled to Rs.66,243/-only. [5] While the aforestated events took place after the retirement of the writ petitioner in the year 2010, it appears that a committee was constituted by the Government of Manipur to examine the proposal for regularization of grant of higher scale of pay to different categories of teachers owing to their acquiring qualifications prescribed for appointment to higher posts. On 20.08.2016, the State Cabinet decided to cancel the grant of scale of higher posts, viz., the so-called qualification scale, to teachers. Pursuant thereto, the Administrative Department is stated to have issued order dated 06.09.2016 cancelling the grant of scale of higher posts (qualification scale) to 1786 teachers. On 20.08.2016, the State Cabinet decided to cancel the grant of scale of higher posts, viz., the so-called qualification scale, to teachers. Pursuant thereto, the Administrative Department is stated to have issued order dated 06.09.2016 cancelling the grant of scale of higher posts (qualification scale) to 1786 teachers. However, the All Manipur Elementary School Teachers Association filed W.P(C) No.1009 of 2016 assailing the said order dated 06.09.2016. Thereupon, the State Cabinet decided to review its earlier decision with regard to cancellation of the grant of qualification scale. By its decision dated 28.04.2017, the State Cabinet decided to withdraw its earlier decision dated 20.08.2016. In consequence, the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, issued order dated 24.06.2017 stating that the earlier order dated 06.09.2016, cancelling the grant of scale of higher posts (qualification scale), stood withdrawn/cancelled. It is only upon the issuance of this order that the writ petitioner submitted representation dated 11.10.2019 to the State authorities requesting for refund of the sum of Rs.3,11,842/-deducted from her retirement benefits. As the same failed to evoke a response, she filed the subject writ petition. [6] The State authorities filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner. They admitted that the writ petitioner was allowed to enjoy the so-called qualification scale with effect from 01.07.1983, vide order dated 05.03.1992. According to them, this benefit was extended to her without the concurrence of the Finance Department. Further, they asserted that amended Rule 70-A of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977, permitted recovery/adjustment of any error or irregularity in an account irrespective of the date of detection thereof. They pointed out that the writ petitioner had submitted letter dated 28.07.2011 to the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, consenting to deduction of the overpayment of salary to her. It is on this basis that they justified the deductions made from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner. [7] A separate affidavit-in-opposition was filed in the writ petition by the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E), Manipur. Therein, he stated that his office merely implements the decisions taken by the State authorities on issues relating to maintenance of GPF, pension and entitlements. [7] A separate affidavit-in-opposition was filed in the writ petition by the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E), Manipur. Therein, he stated that his office merely implements the decisions taken by the State authorities on issues relating to maintenance of GPF, pension and entitlements. He further stated that examination of pension papers and service records is the bounden duty of his office and in the course of that exercise, it was found that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Matriculate Teacher in the scale of Rs.470-860/-with effect from 01.07.1983, vide order dated 15.06.1983, but she was allowed to enjoy the higher pay scale of Rs.575-1050/-retrospectively with effect from 01.07.1983, consequent upon her acquiring higher qualification without the concurrence of the Finance Department or recommendation of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. The Joint Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur, was therefore requested to furnish a clarification on this issue, vide letter dated 23.07.2011. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner consented to deduction of the overpayment of pay and allowances, vide letter dated 28.07.2011. Thereupon, his office worked out the overpayment made and quantified it as Rs.3,11,847/-. This amount was accordingly deducted from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner. Reference was made to Rule 73 of the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rule, 1977, which states to the effect that the Government dues, as ascertained and assessed by the Head of Office, which remain outstanding till the date of retirement of the Government servant, shall be adjusted against the amount of the retirement gratuity becoming payable. He, therefore, justified the impugned deduction made from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner. [8] In her rejoinder affidavit filed in response to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No.1, the writ petitioner pointed out that the grant of qualification scale, trained scale and senior scale to her were made prior to the year 2005 and, therefore, the proceedings referred to by respondent No.1, which were subsequent thereto, would not have application. She further stated that she retired from service with effect from 30.06.2010 and recoveries should not be effected, when excess payment had been made for a period in excess of five years as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. She accordingly prayed for relief. She further stated that she retired from service with effect from 30.06.2010 and recoveries should not be effected, when excess payment had been made for a period in excess of five years as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. She accordingly prayed for relief. [9] Upon consideration of the pleadings and the material on record, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the proceedings of the year 2016 would have no impact upon the writ petitioner as she had retired from service in the year 2010 itself. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the writ petitioner was not even put on notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing before effecting the impugned deductions from her retirement benefits. Referring to case law on the point, the learned Judge opined that as the writ petitioner had not played any role in the payment of the qualification scale, she could not be victimized therefor. The learned Judge noted that, had the writ petitioner not agreed to the deductions, she would have been denied her retirement benefits and, as a matter of course, she would have been compelled to submit such consent. The learned Judge was, therefore, not inclined to attach any value to the consent procured from the writ petitioner. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the decision of the Government, embodied in the earlier order dated 06.09.2016, with regard to cancellation of the grant of the qualification scale to teachers, was withdrawn/cancelled under the later order dated 24.06.2017 of the Government of Manipur. Therefore, the very principle on the basis on which deductions had been effected from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner stood nullified, by virtue of this subsequent action. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge granted relief to the writ petitioner. [10] At first blush, it may seem that the writ petitioner was liable to be non-suited on the ground of delay and laches. However, it is significant to note that the respondent authorities in the writ petition, viz., the appellants in these two appeals, did not even raise the ground of limitation against her in their affidavits-in-opposition. This was clearly because their very action in effecting deductions from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner was itself belated, being in respect of payments made to her long ago. This was clearly because their very action in effecting deductions from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner was itself belated, being in respect of payments made to her long ago. Ordinarily, when financial benefit is extended to an employee under an order, the said order would itself specify that if it was found thereafter that any excess payment was made, it would be liable to be recovered. However, the orders under which the writ petitioner was granted qualification scale and enhancements thereof did not even mention this rider. The State authorities conceded in their affidavit-in-opposition that extension of the qualification scale to the writ petitioner related back to the order dated 05.03.1992, when she was given such scale with retrospective effect from 01.07.1983. In effect, it was the authorities who were digging up long past events and seeking to reopen them. [11] At that point of time, there was not even a decision taken with regard to cancellation of the grant of the qualification scale to teachers. It may be noted that such grant, under the orders placed before this Court, was not limited to the writ petitioner alone. However, there is no mention of any similar deductions being made from the retirement benefits of the other teachers who find mention in the order dated 05.03.1992, whereby the writ petitioner was granted the qualification scale with effect from 01.07.1983. Therefore, it appears that it was only the writ petitioner who was picked upon for this special treatment for some reason. [12] It is well settled that pension is not a bounty, being the hard-earned dues of an employee who has put in long and dedicated service till the age of retirement. [See D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, { (1983) 1 SCC 305 }]. The same principle would hold good for other retirement benefits also. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioner gave her consent, under letter dated 28.07.2011, specifically agreeing to deduction of the overpayment in her pay and allowance on account of placement in the higher scale of pay with retrospective effect from 01.07.1983. However, merely because this consent was given by her did not absolve the authorities from basing such deductions on legally valid and tenable grounds. However, merely because this consent was given by her did not absolve the authorities from basing such deductions on legally valid and tenable grounds. As already noted supra, only the writ petitioner seems to have been picked upon for this special treatment as there is no evidence forthcoming of any other teachers who were granted similar benefit, vide the order dated 05.03.1992, being subjected to similar treatment. Further, as observed by the learned Judge in the judgment and order under appeal, an employee on the verge of retirement would not be in a position to bargain and would be inclined to give consent so that his or her retirement benefits are processed expeditiously. Therefore, the mere fact that the writ petitioner gave her consent is not sufficient, in itself, to hold against her and give the authorities a clean chit for their illegal and wholly unsustainable action in the year 2011. The said action had no legal foundation as no decision was taken by the State Government till the year 2016 with regard to cancellation of the grant of qualification scale to teachers. Significantly, that decision itself came to be cancelled/withdrawn in the year 2017. Thus, as matters stand, it is not even the case of the State authorities that there is any extant policy to the effect that grant of qualification scale should be cancelled in so far as teachers are concerned. [13] That apart, as noted by the learned Judge, the authorities did not even deem it necessary to put the writ petitioner on notice before quantifying the overpayments allegedly made to her. The entire exercise was undertaken by the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, behind her back and to her detriment. There was, thus, clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Rules 70A and 73 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977, would come into play upon lawful bilateral determination of the amounts sought to be recovered and not upon a unilateral quantification thereof. [14] Thus, on both counts, the action of the authorities in effecting deductions to the tune of Rs.3,11,847/-from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner was not only illegal but clearly void in its very inception. Once that is so, the question of non-suiting the writ petitioner on the ground that there was delay on her part in assailing the said void action of the authorities does not arise. Once that is so, the question of non-suiting the writ petitioner on the ground that there was delay on her part in assailing the said void action of the authorities does not arise. Illegal and void action, unlike fine wine, does not mature over a period of time to attain a higher status. It remains just as illegal and void as it was earlier. Limitation law or other technicalities cannot be pressed into service to safeguard it. [15] Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others { (2015) 4 SCC 334 }. This case dealt with recoveries of amounts paid in excess from retired employees. It was observed therein that orders passed by the State, as an employer, seeking to recover monetary benefits wrongly extended to the employees can only be interfered with in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature which would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer9s right to recover and as between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other, which is truly a welfare State, the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court therefore held that the right to recover being pursued by the State, as an employer, would have to be compared with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned and if the effect of such recovery from the employee would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary to effect such recovery. Per the Supreme Court, in such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance and, therefore, eclipse the right of the State, as employer, to recover. Keeping these principles in mind, the Supreme Court noted that it would not be 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. Keeping these principles in mind, the Supreme Court noted that it would not be 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. However, based on the decisions referred to by it, the Supreme Court summarized a few situations wherein recovery by the employer would not be permissible in law. One such situation is where recovery from the employee is sought to be made of excess payments made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued. Therefore, even if it is accepted that there was excess payment made to the writ petitioner, this edict of the Supreme Court would be clearly applicable, as it is the admitted position that the recovery sought to be made is in relation to payment of qualification scale to the writ petitioner from the year 1983 and enhancements thereof. It may also be noted that this edict merely reiterated the law laid down in Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India { (1994) 2 SCC 521 }, which held to the effect that recovery sought to be made after eleven years would be unsustainable in law. This was the position of law holding the field at the time the deductions were effected from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner. Viewed thus, it is not open to the State of Manipur to profess to be a welfare State, on the one hand, and seek to justify the wholly illegal and void deductions made from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed in W.P(C) No.574 of 2021. [16] The writ appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. In consequence, MC (WA) No.201 of 2022 and MC (WA) No.206 of 2022, filed for interim relief, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.