JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. The petitioners in these connected writ petitions were serving in the Kerala State Housing Board in various posts. It is admitted by both sides that, as on date, the petitioners in the re pective writ petitions have retired from service. The petitioners contend that pursuant to Ext.P1 Government Order dated 25.11.1998, the revision of pay with respect to Government employees was carried out. They further point out with reference to the contents of Ext.P1 that 1/3 rd of the posts – Assistant Executive Engineer, Design Assistant and such other posts, were visualised pursuant to the pay revision. It is not in dispute that, as rightly contended by the petitioners, the Government themselves issued Ext.P2 order dated 07.10.1999, directing the Housing Board to adopt the revisions suggested pursuant to the Pay Revision Committee, 1997, and as ordered by the Government in Ext.P1. On the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners point out that they were extended ratio-based promotion, and the petitioners are also enjoying the afore benefits. It is on the face of the afore, the petitioners further point out that the Government came out with Ext.P16 order dated 06.01.2016 (in W.P.(C) No.39378 of 2017), finding that, as regards the Housing Board, there should be an independent pay revision carried out by them and further holding that with reference to the pay revisions of the Housing Board till 1999, the various posts referred to therein were not found included by Ext.P16. It was directed that whatever benefits extended were to be taken back. On the basis of the afore, the petitioners lament that certain audit objections were raised, and coercive proceedings initiated against them. 2. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners. 3. I have heard Sri.V.Varghese and Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, Sri.K.P.Madhu, the learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent. 4. Two issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. The first issue is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P16 (in W.P.(C) No.39378 of 2017). 4. Two issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. The first issue is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P16 (in W.P.(C) No.39378 of 2017). This Court notices that Ext.P16 has been issued with reference to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board on the allegation that as regards the pay revisions till the year 1999 of the said Board, none of the posts visualised were finding a place. At the same time, this Court notices that the Government themselves issued Ext.P2 dated 07.10.1999, specifically ordering the Kerala State Housing Board to adopt the revised scales of pay to the employees of the Board and further directing the Board to modify the existing and revised rate of remuneration of part- time sweepers. On the face of Ext.P2, I am of the opinion that the findings in paragraph No.5 in Ext.P16 cannot be justified. This Court also notices the submission made by Sri.Madhu, on behalf of the Housing Board, that the Housing Board had already represented to the Government, pointing out the afore and requesting the Government to rectify the anomaly pursuant to Ext.P16. In the light of the afore, I hold that the benefits already extended to the petitioners pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 cumulatively are not to be reviewed as directed in Ext.P16. 5. Secondly, I notice that, as admitted by both sides, the petitioners in these writ petitions have since retired from the service of the Housing Board. It is not in dispute that whatever benefits extended to the respective petitioners pursuant to the ratio-based promotion granted to them on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, as also on the basis of subsequent Government Orders, are now being sought to be recovered. It is a settled principle of law that, if certain benefits are extended to an employee, even if it is found that the employee was not entitled for the afore benefits, the same could not be recovered from the employee after he has retired from the service. In this regard, I seek to rely on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ] as well as Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala [(2022) 3 KLT 307] 6. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Resultantly, these writ petitions would stand allowed by declaring that no coercive proceedings are to be taken against the respective petitioners on the basis of the audit objections or on the basis of the Government Order at Ext.P16 (in W.P.(C) No.39378 of 2017). Needless to say that, if any benefits are to be extended to the petitioners on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, which remain not disbursed on account of the pendency of these writ petitions, the same are also to be disbursed to the petitioners