JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 02.11.2011, whereby the respondents passed proceedings to the effect of retiring the petitioner from service on 26.02.2010 and also ordered a recovery of all benefits paid to the petitioner after 26.02.2010. Further direction is sought to treat the petitioner as on duty till the end of February, 2012 and release the benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Gas Mechanic on 19.10.1991. He served upto the year October, 2011. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not followed the circular issued by the State dated 30.10.2008 whereby the employees belonging to last grade service shall retire from service soon after they attain the age of 60 years and employees who did not come under the category of last grade service shall retire from the service in the afternoon of last day of the month in which the said employee attains the age of 58 years. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee and that he ought to have retired from service after attaining the age of 60 years. While things stood thus, the 1st respondent issued vide proceedings dated 02.11.2011 ordering the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 28.02.2010, (retrospectively) and it was further ordered to take steps for ensuring requirement of all benefits extended to the petitioner after 28.02.2010. It is submitted that the respondents have erred in passing the impugned order the petitioner ought to have retired from service in March, 2012. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was serving as a Gas Mechanic and he was technically qualified. The ITI-qualified mechanics are called under the New Common Category and have a different pay scale. The petitioner was one among the seven mechanics who was technically qualified and as such he is eligible for a revised pay scale under the New Common Category. The issue of applicability of the Government Memo dated 30.10.2008 was placed before the Board for taking an appropriate decision and the Board held that the petitioner would not come under the last grade service and as such the petitioner ought to be retired soon after he attains the age of 58 years. 6. Heard. Perused the pleadings. 7. The issue of applicability of the Government Memo dated 30.10.2008 was placed before the Board for taking an appropriate decision and the Board held that the petitioner would not come under the last grade service and as such the petitioner ought to be retired soon after he attains the age of 58 years. 6. Heard. Perused the pleadings. 7. The impugned proceedings dated 02.11.2011 whereby the respondents have retired the petitioner from service with effect from 28.02.2010 the date on which the petitioner attained the age of 58 years. In the same proceedings, the respondents have directed the concerned officer to immediately take necessary action to settle the retirement benefits of the individual duly recovering all the benefits extended to him after 28.02.2010. 8. During the course of the hearing, it is also informed that the petitioner was paid the service benefits after deducting the excess amount which according to the respondents was paid to the petitioner for his service rendered from 01.03.2010 till 01.01.2011. The impugned proceeding deserves to be set aside to the extent of directing the recovery of all the benefits extended to the petitioner after 28.02.2010. 9. It is a settled law that the respondent cannot order for recovery on the ground that amount was paid erroneously to the petitioner though he is not entitled for. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012). In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 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 Supreme Court summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers 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. (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. (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. On the facts of this case, the case of the petitioner falls within the situations postulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment. In the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner rendered his service till 01.01.2011 as a LPG Mechanic. 11. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated 02.11.2011 directing the recovery for the service rendered by the petitioner from 01.03.2010 to 01.11.2011 are irrational, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner while the respondents proposed recovering the benefits extended to him. The impugned proceedings also directed the concerned authority to initiate recovery for the benefits extended to the petitioner from 28.02.2010. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot propose any recovery of the amounts paid to the petitioner beyond 28.02.2010 and the petitioner was paid his due payments for his service. On the contrary, the respondents ought to have construed the payment paid to the petitioner for the services rendered by him from 01.03.2010 to 01.01.2011. Ordering the recovery of the amounts which were paid to the petitioner for his service is an irrational act which deserves to be set aside. 13. The respondents are hereby directed to release the amounts which was deducted from his retirement benefits towards the services extended by him from 28.02.2010 onwards. The respondents shall release the amount which was deducted from the retirement benefits towards the payments made beyond 28.02.2010 together with interest calculated @ 9% p.a., within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The respondents shall release the amount which was deducted from the retirement benefits towards the payments made beyond 28.02.2010 together with interest calculated @ 9% p.a., within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part. No costs. 15. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.