JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar learned counsel for the respondents-State as well as Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4-Accountant General.

2. These writ petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1718 of 2019 for quashing the office order dated 15.03.2019 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby direction has been issued to recover the amount that has been paid in excess to the present petitioner after the retirement.

4. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1719 of 2019 has been filed for arrears of salary appertaining to benefits of 2nd MACP and the benefit of 7th PRC. Prayer has also been made to enhance the benefit of 3rd MACP for which the petitioner has become eligible on 19.04.2018 on completion of 30 years of regular service.

5. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 13.04.1988. The petitioner has passed Hindi Noting examination on 14.03.1989. The petitioner has also passed Departmental examinations. The services of the petitioner got confirmed on 11.09.2003. The petitioner was granted benefit of 6th PRC in the scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- on 28.02.2009. The petitioner was granted benefit of 1st ACP w.e.f. on 09.04.2000 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- and benefit of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/-. The petitioner was granted benefit of 7th PRC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 vide order dated 18.01.2017, however, arrears of 7th PRC has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated from the service on 31.10.2018. The pensionary benefit of the petitioner has been fixed. Thereafter, by order dated 15.03.2019 the respondent authority directed to recover excess payment made to the petitioner. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

6. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2018 whereas the impugned order has been passed on 15.03.2019 contained in Annexure-2 of W.P. (S) No. 1718 of 2019. He submits that the impugned order has been passed after retirement of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. To buttress his argument, he relied the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 particularly Para 18 which is quoted 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,