Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order of recovery dated 23.5.2009, whereby, an amount Rs. 6,51,660/-, which is due against the deceased husband of the petitioner, is directed to be deposited, otherwise, the same will be recovered from the retirement dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner who died on 30.11.2007 while serving the respondent.

3. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of recovery has been passed without giving any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, the recovery is directed against the dues of her husband who had already died in harness. The next leg of the argument is that the order of recovery dated 23.5.2009 is absolutely silent on reason qua the recovery amount as to in what head and what category this recovery has accrued against the dues of deceased husband of the petitioner except the item No. 3.

4. Per contra, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent is that there were certain articles which were required to be handed over by the deceased employee in the concerned stores at Jhansi but were not handed over and a show-cause notice to that effect was given to the deceased husband of the petitioner on 5.10.2007.

5. Having perused the impugned order, I find that as far as the reasons for passing order of recovery against the retirement dues of the petitioner’s husband are concerned, the order is sans it, inasmuch as, there is no reference to any show-cause notice, as has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent. Besides, I also find that heads of recovery which have been shown except item No. 3, it is not clear as to what loss is sought to be covered by the impugned recovery from the dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner. As far as, item No. 3 is concerned, it is with regard to pay revision and fixation.

6. In cases of wrong fixation of pay where employee has not been responsible, no recovery can be permitted after lapse of long time and that too from the dues that widow is entitled due to loss of her husband in harness.

7. Supreme Court on this very above ground, refused to interfere in the order of High Court, quashing recovery from pension of an employee of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Varghese, (2003) 12 SCC 293, observing that recovery after retirement amounts to cut from retiral dues and causes irreparable loss and injury to a retired employee, as retirement dues are the only source of livelihood. Apex Court in the case of Ram Dayal Rai v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others, (2005) 3 SCC 501, held that even 5% cut out from the total amount of pension payable to the appellant was an irreparable loss and injury. Court in this case while dealing with a recovery due to overstay in official accommodation, had held:

“If the pensioner’s benefit is cut at 5% out of the total amount of pension payable to the appellant, the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury since, after retirement, the pensionary benefit is the only amount available to eke out a livelihood for the retired employees of the Government.”

8. Laying down the parameters borne on principles when an act of recovery from a retired employee can be held iniquitous and arbitrary, the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, observed by para 16 thus:

“16. This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (supra) held as follows:

“59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit