Harish Kumar, J. – Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Letter No. 587 dated 12.10.2021, issued by the respondent no. 6, the Administrative Officer, Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited, whereby recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs. 41,782/- has been directed in consonance with the Office Order No. 21 dated 17.01.2020 and Memo No. 443 dated 04.11.2020 issued by the Under Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding (Generation) Company Limited. 3. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the petitioner adverting to the facts enumerated in the writ petition has contended that after rendering a long unblemished service, the petitioner superannuated from the post of Operator Technician (Grade-III) at Transmission Sub-Division, Wazirganj, Gaya on 01.12.2019. Upon superannuation of the petitioner, the petitioner has been accorded all the retiral benefits and other dues, as was admissible to the petitioner. However, all on a sudden, the impugned order came to be passed directing for recovery of an amount of Rs. 41,782/- on the premise that excess payment has been made to the petitioner, on account of wrongly extending the benefit of 3rd MACP with effect from 16.05.2012, instead of 16.05.2014. 4. While assailing the impugned order, learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that admittedly there is no misrepresentation or fraud and suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner, moreover, the petitioner was allowed to superannuate unconditionally on 01.12.2019 and the alleged excess amount is said to have been paid with effect from 16.05.2012, much prior to the superannuation. Hence, in any view of the matter, the same cannot be recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The action of the respondent authorities in the teeth of the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], as also the decision rendered in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 536, wherein the Court deprecated the recovery of any amount from the retiral benefits of Class-III and IV employees. 5. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], as also the decision rendered in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 536, wherein the Court deprecated the recovery of any amount from the retiral benefits of Class-III and IV employees. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited dispelling the aforenoted contention of the petitioner has submitted that prior to the issuance of the impugned order, a proper show-cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. However, the petitioner knowingly did not respond to the show-cause. On being found no response on the part of the petitioner, the concerned authority proceeded in the matter and after verification, it has been found that excess amount to the tune of Rs. 41,782/- has been paid excess to the entitlement of the petitioner, on account of wrongly extending the benefit of 3rd MACP with effect from 16.05.2012 instead of 16.05.2014. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saryu Prasad vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., CWJC No. 9658 of 2011. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) ruled that when the excess unauthorized payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment has been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: – “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India [ (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar [ (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram vs. Director [ (1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India [ (2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529], Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar [ (2006) 11 SCC 492 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508], Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh [ (2006) 8 SCC 647 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] and Bihar SEB vs. Bijay Bhadur [ (2000) 10 SCC 99 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 394].” 7. When the issue of recovery from the Class-III and Class-IV employees were raised in various cases, in order to put a quitous, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) has been painstakingly postulated some of the situations of the hardship wherein recovery by the employee would be found impermissible in law. 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. 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in no uncertain term held that no recovery can be made from the retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery and when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. 9. In the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that in a case where an employee has been accorded extra increment and the same has been paid for a period of more than ten years or more, the State cannot recover the excess amount paid to the employee. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent, whereby the recovery is directed and consequentially the same has been recovered, stands quashed and cancelled. 11. Let the recovered amount be refunded to the petitioner, forthwith. 12. The writ petition stands allowed.