JUDGMENT : Arun Monga, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in this bunch of petitions, they are being decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No.14071/2017. 2. The grievance of the petitioners herein stems from the orders dated 01.03.2016 (Annex.6), 09.10.2017 (Annex.10), 25.11.2024 (Annex.18), 08.06.2015 (Annex.9), 16.06.2015 (Annex.10), and 25.11.2014 (Annex.25) respectively, by which recovery was ordered against the petitioners. 3. Briefly, the relevant facts as pleaded in CWP No.14071/2017 are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Ward Boy (Class-IV employee) on 21.05.1989 and was granted the 1st Selection Grade after 12 years of service. 3.1 The petitioner was promoted to the post of LDC in the pay scale of Rs.950-1680/-. After promotion, the services of the petitioner were governed by the Raj Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1997. 3.2 In pursuance of the order dated 03.12.1996, the petitioner joined duty as an LDC, and in pursuance of the notification dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner was granted the benefit of the 1st selection grade on completion of 9 years of service in the post of LDC, vide order dated 31.10.2006. 3.3 On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2015, and the CPO, PPO was issued by the respondents. 3.4 The pension case of the petitioner was sent to the pension department for revision of the pension. However, by order dated 19.09.2016, the pension department raised an objection regarding the benefit of the third selection grade to the petitioner. The pension department specifically stated in the order that the petitioner is not eligible for the 3rd selection grade. 3.5 By order dated 22.05.2017, the respondent department amended the grade pay to Rs.3,200/- instead of Rs.3,600/- after the completion of 27 years of service. 3.6 In pursuance of the order dated 29.05.2017, the respondents passed an order dated 29.06.2017, and by this order, the respondent department sent the case of the petitioner to the pension department for revision of his pension according to the grade pay of Rs.3,200/- and issued a recovery of excess payment order. 3.7 Vide order dated 09.10.2017, the respondent department cancelled the orders dated 01.03.2016 and 22.05.2017 due to objections raised by the pension department. Hence, this petition. 4. 3.7 Vide order dated 09.10.2017, the respondent department cancelled the orders dated 01.03.2016 and 22.05.2017 due to objections raised by the pension department. Hence, this petition. 4. In the reply, the defense taken is that vide order dated 01.03.2016, the petitioner was granted ACP on completion of 27 years of service in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- w.e.f 10.09.2006 by treating his 1st date of appointment as 21.05.1959. Vide order dated 09.10.2017, based on the objection of the pension department, he was granted said ACP on completion of 27 years w.e.f. 01.09.2006 at Rs.5,200-20,200/-with grade pay of Rs.2,800/-. 4.1 This is a matter regarding his pay fixation and, on that account, varying amounts of pension etc. Thus, from a bare perusal of the relief clause (i), it would reveal that the petitioner has essentially raised a “Service Matter” regarding his pay fixation and consequent variations in pension etc., for which an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. Despite this, the petitioner pursued this petition before this Hon’ble Court. Thus, the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case file. 6. What transpires herein is a short controversy as to whether there was any misrepresentation and concealment of any kind on the part of the petitioner, which led to him being accorded the benefit of a higher scale than he deserved. 7. From the bare pleadings themselves, it is borne out, particularly in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, that there is no allegation of any kind attributed to the petitioner regarding any misrepresentation and/or concealment. The superiors in the office, at the relevant time, at their own volition, accorded the benefit of the pay scale to the petitioner and subsequently, on their own, realized that it was erroneously granted as it stands. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the candid admission that there is no act of any kind, overt or covert, attributable to the petitioner, the impugned orders of recovery dated 01.03.2016 (Annex.6) and 09.10.2017 (Annex.10) are not sustainable. 9. Reference may also be had to the judgment rendered in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. 9. Reference may also be had to the judgment rendered in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein following parameters have been laid down; relevant para-18 of the judgment, ibid, enumerated with the circumstances under which recovery can be made, is reproduced herein below:- “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.” 10. In view of the aforesaid coupled with my discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the writ petitions are allowed with consequences to follow. The impugned orders passed in the writ petitions viz. dated 01.03.2016 (Annex.6) & 09.10.2017 (Annex.10), 25.11.2024 (Annex.18), 08.06.2015 (Annex.9) & 16.06.2015 (Annex.10) and 25.11.2014 (Annex.25), respectively are set aside with consequences to follow. 11. Recovery, if any, made from the petitioners shall be refunded back to them along with interest as per applicable Service Rules. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.