JUDGMENT : (Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, J.) : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues as he has retired on 28.02.2015 from the post of Clerk posted in the office of Circle Officer, Somuwa, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after retirement, he approached the authorities by way of representation but neither the gratuity nor the pensionary benefits were paid and also the pension has not been fixed. 4. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondent-State as well as respondent-Accountant General. 5. From perusal of para-7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 14.09.2021, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 it appears that petitioner was paid gratuity to the tune of Rs.4,84,585/- on 09.10.2015. Similarly, the amount of unutilized earned leave of Rs.3,26,320/- was paid on 09.10.2015, the amount of Group Insurance Account of Rs.1,26,891 was paid on 20.06.2016, the amount of General Provident Fund of Rs.3,19,618/- was paid on 05.08.2015 and total of the aforesaid amounts comes to Rs.12,57,414/-. It has further been stated that pension of the petitioner has also been fixed and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated. 6. However, since petitioner has not deposited the amount of Rs.4,12,061.56, which is apparent from Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit dated 23.08.2017, the amount of 10% of the amount of gratuity and pension has been withheld. 7. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Accountant General that on their part they have done everything and the entire benefits has been extended to the petitioner and pension of the petitioner has also been fixed. So far as withholding of 10% of the amount of gratuity and pension is concerned, the same can only be done after receiving recommendation from the State regarding disbursement of the same. 8. Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a specific averment has been made in the writ petition that never in the entire service career either any complaint or any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for non-depositing of the said amount as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. 8. Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a specific averment has been made in the writ petition that never in the entire service career either any complaint or any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for non-depositing of the said amount as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel further argues that even the allegation regarding presence of the petitioner is not proved and facts remains that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as Clerk and not as Nazir and the allegation of respondents are totally falsified. Learned counsel further argues that even after retirement it is not permitted to withhold the amount of retiral benefits from a 3rd or 4th grade employee in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that though after retirement it was found that an amount of Rs.4,12,061.56 is lying with the petitioner and as such, he was directed to appear before the Treasury Officer but he failed to do so and as such, 10% of the retiral benefits has been withheld and not paid to the petitioner. 10. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: I) Admittedly, petitioner was a Class-III employee posted in the office of Circle Officer, Somuwa, Chaibasa. II) Law is well settled that any order for recovery has to be passed in accordance with law and following procedures. The State is precluded from recovery of any amount from the retiral benefits of a Class-III or IV employee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly held that : “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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly held that : “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.” III) The Treasury officer has no authority in law to withhold 10% amount of the retiral benefits. The same can be done after following the procedures of law. IV) Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that after retirement, a proceeding was initiated under the Bihar Pension Rules for forfeiture of the amount of gratuity as well as pensionary benefits. It appears that the Treasury Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction which can be done only by the order of the State. In the instant case, the State has not passed any order regarding recovery or forfeiture of the amount of retiral benefits neither the same has been brought on record. V) The action of the Treasury Officer is not praiseworthy and the same is dehors the rules. In the instant case, the State has not passed any order regarding recovery or forfeiture of the amount of retiral benefits neither the same has been brought on record. V) The action of the Treasury Officer is not praiseworthy and the same is dehors the rules. VI) Specific stand has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition which has been acceded by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that no departmental proceeding or any complaint was ever been made in the entire service career of the petitioner. VII) In absence of any complaint or adverse remarks or initiation of any proceeding, it was not open for the respondents to withhold the 10% amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. VIII) The service career of the petitioner remained unblemished and as such, without following the procedure prescribed in the Bihar Pension Rules, not a single farthing can be recovered from a government employee. 11. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent-State to recommend the case of the petitioner to the Accountant General for release of 10% of the amount of gratuity and also for release of pensionary benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such recommendation, the respondent-Accountant General is directed to issue authority letter for release of the remaining 10% amount of gratuity and pensionary benefits in the favour of the petitioner within a further period of four weeks. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.