ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3519 of 2013, the State has filed this intracourt appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Counsel for the appellants-State submits that when the service book of the petitioner was sent to the District Accounts Officer, it was detected that First Time Bound promotion, which was granted to the petitioner, was given effect from 19.09.1990 and the 1st ACP with effect from 09.08.1999, but as he did not pass Departmental Accounts Examination, the same was shifted to 24.07.2003. It is his case that vide letter issued in January 2004, the District Accounts Officer, Hazaribagh returned the service book with an objection, but the said letter was not found in the personal file of the petitioner, thus, no action could be taken. Considering the fact that the petitioner did not pass the Accounts Examination, the date of 1st ACP was shifted. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that learned Single Judge, after going through the record, had specifically arrived at a finding that no fraud was committed by this petitioner. Thus, there cannot be any recovery from the petitioner from his retirement benefits for the laches, which cannot be attributed to the petitioner. As per him, the pension must be fixed based on the last pay drawn, i.e., Rs.20,310/-, as the aforesaid amount was his last pay. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the records, we find that the petitioner has already superannuated from service. He was a clerck. He retired on 31.07.2009. He was given the benefit of 1st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 19.09.1990 and 1st ACP with effect from 09.08.1999. Later on, this date was fixed with effect from 24.07.2003 on the ground that the petitioner had not passed the Departmental Examination vide order dated 06.09.2010. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in W.P.(S) No. 5196 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 18.12.2012 quashed the aforesaid order with a liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appellants-State, thereafter, passed an order justifying the earlier order of shifting the date of grant of ACP on the ground that he has not passed the Departmental Examination. 5. This Court, vide order dated 18.12.2012 quashed the aforesaid order with a liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appellants-State, thereafter, passed an order justifying the earlier order of shifting the date of grant of ACP on the ground that he has not passed the Departmental Examination. 5. Learned Single Judge has held that there is no manipulation on service book of this petitioner nor there is any interpolation in any of the documents nor any Departmental Proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner for alleged misconduct of tampering of records nor there was any charge of mis-representation. We also do not find any material to arrive at a contrary finding. When there is no mis-representation on the part of the petitioner nor any fraud played by him, learned Single Judge has held that there cannot be any recovery. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Normi Topno Vs. The State of Jharkhand [ 2008 (1) JCR 381 Jhr para-47] (ii) S. Naseemuddin Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. [ 2014(4) JLJR 70 ] (iii) W.P.(S) No.4168 of 2008 6. Further, we find that the petitioner has superannuated on 31.07.2009 and this order shifting the date of grant of benefit and recovery was passed after his superannuation, i.e., on 06.09.2010. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others etc. versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 at paragraph 18 thereof, has held that, on amongst others, there cannot be any recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. In this case, admittedly the recovery order was passed after the petitioner had superannuated. 7. All the above aspects were considered by learned Single Judge and thereafter the writ petition was allowed. We find no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3519 of 2013. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.