Order : Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent concerned to refund recovered amount of Rs.83,432/- to the petitioner with interest. (ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may please also be granted. 2. Facts of the case, as reflected from the petition, are that the husband of the petitioner namely Mr. Gajendra Singh Naik, who was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Health & Family Welfare and joined his duties on the said post on 11.06.1985, died during the course of employment on 09.01.2014. Pay scale of Late Gajedra Singh Naik was revised time to time by the competent authority and other benefits were granted to him. After his death, petitioner being his legal Representative/unfortunate widow moved an application for granting retiral benefits before respondent authorities and in pursuance thereof, Respondent No. 3- Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account & Pension issued a letter dated 24.01.2015 to respondent No. 2. Copy of the same has also been supplied to the petitioner. In compliance of the letter dated 24.01.2015, respondent No. 2 issued a letter to the petitioner on 23.05.2015 directing her to deposit an amount of Rs.83,432 through challan for disposal of pension case of her husband/ employee. Subsequently, on 03.06.2015 again for the same purpose a letter was issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. In compliance of aforesaid letters, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.83,432/- through challan in favour of respondents-Department on 05.06.2015 but despite that pension case of the petitioner's husband has not been finalized. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the respondents/authority for refund of aforesaid amount of Rs. 83,432/- and for granting pension, but the respondent/authority neither refunded the aforesaid amount nor granted family pension to the petitioner. It is pleaded that again a letter dated 15.07.2015 was issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner directing her to deposit further amount of Rs.48,756/- through challan for disposal of pension case of concerned employee. Subsequently again for the same purpose, a letter dated 12.08.2015 was issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. It is pleaded that again a letter dated 15.07.2015 was issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner directing her to deposit further amount of Rs.48,756/- through challan for disposal of pension case of concerned employee. Subsequently again for the same purpose, a letter dated 12.08.2015 was issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. Thereafter, without opportunity of hearing and without issuing show-cause notice to her, respondent No. 2 has recovered the total amount of Rs. 83,432/- from the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the said recovery, instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner. 4. Respondents/ state has filed its return stating inter alia that after death of petitioner's husband late G.S. Nayak, calculation sheet of pension was forwarded to the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur on 07.06.2014 for finalization of her pension case. Vide letter dated 02.07.2014, officer of Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur raised some objections in the deceased employee's pension. Thereafter, the respondent Department after examining the calculation of pension case of deceased employee and again sent the pension case alongwith service record to the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of fixation of pay and recovery of Rs.83,432/-, the petitioner has not raised any objection inspite of the fact that the same has duly been communicated to her. It is further averred that Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension on 24.01.2025 raised further objections that deceased employee was entitled to get increment with effect from 26.10.1987 after passing the Hindi Typing examination on 26.10.1986, therefore, fixed the regular pay scale from 26.10.1986 as per provisions contained in Section 65 of the Pension Rules, 1976. It is further pleaded that in view of the instructions of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur, the respondent authority, after disposal of the objections, found that due to wrong fixation of salary, excess amount of Rs.1,32,188/- has been paid to the deceased employee, pursuant to which the respondent authority wrote a letter to the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 48,756/-as excess amount though challan. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to refund the amount of Rs.83,732/- which was recovered from her and to pay the retiral dues. 48,756/-as excess amount though challan. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to refund the amount of Rs.83,732/- which was recovered from her and to pay the retiral dues. Thereafter, various letters have been issued to the petitioner for depositing the amount, but till date petitioner has not made any reply to the said letters, therefore, pension case of the petitioner has not been finalized. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unfortunate widow of Late Gajendra Singh Naik, who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Health & Family Welfare since 1985. He died in harness on 09.01.2014, thereafter, the petitioner requested for grant of retiral dues. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 83,302/- for settling the retiral dues. As the retiral dues of the petitioner was not settled, she was constrained to make the deposit. Thereafter, again vide order dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P-6) a sum of Rs. 48,756/- was directed to be deposited by the petitioner. He further submits that the husband of the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk and was a Class- II Employee. During his life time, no such recovery was proposed against him and only after his death, the recovery is being made from the petitioner, which is impermissible in light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He submits that though in the relief clause, the petitioner has made a prayer with regard to refund of the deposited amount, however, this Court may mould the relief and also quash the order dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P/ 6) by which further amount of Rs. 48,756/- was directed to be deposited by the petitioner, though, she has not paid the aforesaid amount. Hence, he prayed that this petition may be allowed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Puria, learned counsel for the State would submit that husband of petitioner- Late Gajendra Singh Naik was entitled to get an increment after passing the “Typing examination” with effect from 26.10.1987 whereas the increment was given to him with effect from 26.10.1986, therefore, the excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner is being recovered, as undue enrichment received by the husband of the petitioner. As such, no illegality is made to the action of the respondent authorities. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The factual scenario in this case is not in dispute. The petitioner was working on the post of “Lower Division Clark” from the year 1985 and died in harness on 09.01.2014. It is also not reflected from the record as to whether during life time of husband of the petitioner, any action of recovery of excess payment on account of wrong payment of increment with regard to passing of Typing Examination was made against him. The excess amount paid was directed to be recovered after the demise of husband of the petitioner while settling the retiral dues. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra) has considered this issue in great detail and it has been held that when payment has been mistakenly made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement, certain recoveries have been held to be impermissible in law. The law which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 is produced hereinbelow :- “18 . it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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.” 10. (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. It has been further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that recovery from employees belongings to Class-III & Class-IV category is impermissible in law where the payment has been made mistakenly by the employer in excess entitlement. 11. In light of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court in afore-cited case, on perusal of the record and facts of this case, it is quite apparent that the husband of the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk, which is a class-III post. The excess payment was said to have been made from the year 1986 whereas it was supposed to be paid from 1987. For all these years till the death of the husband of petitioner, it does not appear that any recovery proceeding was ever drawn against him. The recovery sought to be made from the retiral benefit of the petitioner, in opinion of this Court, cannot be done in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra) therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 83,432/- to the petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of recovery till its realization. 13. This leads me to the another submission that whether the impugned order/communication dated 15.7.2015 (Annexure P/6) can be set aside without there being any specific prayer made in the writ petition. 14. The petitioner basically claimed for refund of the amount deposited by her, however, she has also prayed that any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may please also be granted. 15. The respondents have made further demand of Rs. 48,756/- vide Annexure P/6 indicating therein that while calculating the excess payment, some mistake has been committed, therefore, further amount of Rs, 48,756/- is directed to be deposited. 16. 15. The respondents have made further demand of Rs. 48,756/- vide Annexure P/6 indicating therein that while calculating the excess payment, some mistake has been committed, therefore, further amount of Rs, 48,756/- is directed to be deposited. 16. This court in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, has held that the demand raised by the respondents was bad in law. The further demand is in also in continuation of the earlier demand made by the respondent. Once, this Court holds that earlier demand is bad, it can further hold that the subsequent demand of Rs.48,756/- vide Annexure (P-6) is also bad in law. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Sudakar vs. V. Manoharan & others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 484 in paragraph 14 has held as under: “14. The power to mould relief is always available to the Court possessed with the power to issue high prerogative writs. In order to do complete justice it can mould the relief, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of a given case a writ petitioner may not be entitled to the specific relief claimed by him but this itself will not preclude the Writ Court to grant such other relief which he is otherwise entitled. Further delay and latches does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court. It is a matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge had taken note of the relevant facts and declined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches.” 18. In this context, some observation made in the paragraph 23 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and another vs. B.C. Chaturvedi reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 requires to be reproduced as under :- “23. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh's case, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. of course, this power is not as wide which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter.” 19. It is mentionable here that this Court while admitting this petition on 05.05.2016 also directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner with regard to subject matter till the next date of hearing. That interim relief continued from time to time. 20. Thus, taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in afore-cited cases and the fact situation of the case, this Court is inclined to mould the relief and set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P/ 6). Accordingly, impugned order dated 15.07.2015 is set aside. 21. In light of above fact situation of the case, writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.