ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“........to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the pension of the petitioner and not releasing the pensionary benefits on the ground that the 1st respondent issued Rc. No. B3/283/1996, dated 08.11.2018 communicated to the petitioner on 28.05.2019 which is contrary to the orders of the APAT in O.A. No. 2886/2007 dated 08.07.2010 and O.A. No 4609/2014 dated 02.08.2016 in respect of similar situated candidates is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and without power and jurisdiction and consequentially declare that the petitioner is eligible to get all pensionary benefits on par with similarly situated candidates with interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner......”

2. Heard Sri K. Sarath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as NMR worker on 20.11.1986 and later he was appointed as Record Assistant vide proceedings dated 31.03.1990 on temporary basis. While he was working as a Record Assistant, the respondents have fixed his pay in the 1993 revised pay scales vide proceedings dated 22.12.1993. Later, his services were regularized vide G.O.Ms. No. 1158 dated 14.11.1994 along with 16 others. He has been extended the pay scales even before his services were regularized. He has attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has retired from service, the respondents are not paying pension and pensionary benefits to him on the ground that certain amounts were excessively paid to him, while he was in service. The 1st respondent had issued proceedings dated 08.11.2018 instructing the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to recover the excess amount paid to him because of erroneous pay fixation at the time of his initial appointment.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that though the proceedings dated 08.11.2018 were issued by the 1st respondent, but the same were communicated to the petitioner only after his retirement from service i.e. on 28.05.2019. He further contended that the issue whether the excess amount paid to the employee can be recovered after retirement is fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise 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.

(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.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that a perusal of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly states tha