JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Aggrieved against the order/communication dated 31.12.2019 Annexure P-1 and office order dated 27.01.2020 Annexure P-2 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the pay of petitioner was reduced and recovery to the tune of Rs.3,06,022/- was effected, the petitioner has approached this Court for following substantive reliefs :- “(i) That the order/communication dated 31.12.2019, Annexure P-1, which directed re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner and recovery of alleged overpayment, after the passing of the judgment in CWP-T No. 773 of 2008 and pursuant office order dated 27.01.2020, Annexure P-2, issued by respondent No.3 whereby the pay of the petitioner was reduced/refixed w.e.f. 08.04.1997 and recovery of the alleged over payment was directed and resultant pension fixation and recovery of Rs.3,06,022/-, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to return the illegally recovered sum of Rs.3,06,022/- alongwith interest @12% per annum and further to refix the salary and the pension of the petitioner without any illegal deduction and the reduced amount of pension paid to the petitioner alongwith interest @12% per annum.” 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on daily wages in the year 1982. His services were regularized w.e.f. 07.02.1992. Petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2007. 3. Petitioner qualified Masters Degree in Sociology in the year 1996-97. The respondent-board vide notification dated 21.05.1984 and 25.02.1987 had decided to allowed benefit of two advance increments to an incumbent who would improve the educational qualification during service. Vide order dated 01.05.1997, petitioner was also granted benefit of two advance increments. Petitioner started getting salary with two advance increments. 4. On 10.08.2007, an order was issued by respondents, whereby the benefit of two advance increments allowed in favour of petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible. Petitioner made representations to the respondents, but without any result. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-T No. 773 of 2008. Vide judgment dated 15.03.2010, the orders dated 10.08.2007 and 22.02.2008, impugned therein, were quashed. However, the respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent kept silent till 31.12.2019, when letter Annexure P-1, was issued directing the re-fixation of the pay of petitioner and recovery of overpaid amount from him. Vide judgment dated 15.03.2010, the orders dated 10.08.2007 and 22.02.2008, impugned therein, were quashed. However, the respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent kept silent till 31.12.2019, when letter Annexure P-1, was issued directing the re-fixation of the pay of petitioner and recovery of overpaid amount from him. Later, office order dated 27.01.2020, Annexure P-2 was also issued implementing the earlier letter Annexure P-1. Petitioner was to superannuate on 31.01.2020. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,06,022/- was withheld from the gratuity of petitioner and the pension of the petitioner was worked out on the re-fixed pay. 5. The petitioner has pressed into service judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019, decided on 24.03.2022 along with connected matters, whereby certain situations have been culled out in which the recoveries from government employees have been held to be impermissible. 6. On the other hand, the respondents have contested the claim of petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that re-fixation of pay and recovery cannot be said to be bad in law on account of delay. It is also submitted that in view of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-T No. 773 of 2008, petitioner was not entitled to raise the same issue again. Respondents have also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. vs. State of Uttarkhand & Ors., decided on 17th August, 2012 bearing Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. Perusal of judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed in CWP-T No. 773 of 2008 by learned Single Judge of this Court reveals that the orders/letters dated 10.08.2007 and 22.02.2008 were quashed and set aside. The respondents had sought to withdraw the benefit of two advanced increments, earlier allowed in favour of the petitioner, vide aforesaid letters dated 10.08.2007 and 22.02.2008. It was noticed by learned Single Judge that the petitioner had not been heard before issuance of the impugned letters, whereas he ought to have been heard before the decision was taken to withdraw the benefit of two advanced increments. It was noticed by learned Single Judge that the petitioner had not been heard before issuance of the impugned letters, whereas he ought to have been heard before the decision was taken to withdraw the benefit of two advanced increments. Placing reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others Versus State of Bihar & Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 , the aforesaid impugned orders were quashed and set aside. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 9. None of the parties assailed the aforesaid judgment which eventually attained the finality. 10. Respondents remained silent thereafter and till about few days before the date of superannuation of petitioner. Letter Annexure P-1 was issued on 31.12.2019 and the impugned office order Annexure P-2 was issued on 27.01.2020. Petitioner was to superannuate on 31.01.2020. 11. As noticed above, the Division Bench of this Court after considering the law on the subject including Chandi Prasad Unial (supra), passed the judgment on 24.03.2022 in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019, S.S. Chaudhary vs. State and others, and culled out certain situations in which recoveries from government employee be held to be impermissible in the manner as under :- 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:- (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from 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. (vi) Recovery on the basis of undertaking from the employees essentially has to be confined to Class-I/Group-A and Class-II/Group-B, but even then, the Court may be required to see whether the recovery would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. (vii) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV even on the basis of undertaking is impermissible. (viii) The aforesaid categories of cases are by way of illustration and it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelised and inflexible gudielines or rigid formula and to give any exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases. Therefore, each of such cases would be required to be decided on its own merit.” 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belonged to Class-III services. Thus, his case will be squarely covered under clause (I) of para 35 of the judgment referred above. Additionally, the belated recovery from petitioner is also squarely covered by clause (ii) and clause (iii) of the para-35 of the aforesaid judgment. In view of this, the recovery of Rs.3,06,022/- effected from petitioner by withholding his gratuity to that extent is bad in law and cannot be sustained. 13. Further, as regards, the legality and validity of the orders on the basis of which the pay of petitioner has been re-fixed and consequent recovery has been effected, suffice it to say that all such orders were quashed and set aside by this Court while deciding CWP-T No. 773 of 2008 and one of the grounds was that orders had been passed at the back of the petitioner without affording him opportunity of being heard. Despite said judgment, again respondents passed the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 without compliance of principle of natural justice. For such reason, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 14. Despite said judgment, again respondents passed the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 without compliance of principle of natural justice. For such reason, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 14. In the light of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, order/communication dated 31.12.2019, Annexure P-1 and office order dated 27.01.2020, Annexure P-2 are quashed and set aside. The re-fixation of pay of petitioner affected in pursuance to aforesaid orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 is held to be bad in law and the respondents are directed review and restore the pay of petitioner as it was before re-fixation. Further, the respondents are also directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,06,022/- withheld from the gratuity of the petitioner and also to re-fix the pension of petitioner accordingly. Needful in terms of this judgment be done within six weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 15. The petition is accordingly disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.