JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. This writ petition was heard on 30.01.2026, 24.02.2026 and was reserved for judgment after the concluding arguments had been advanced on 27.02.2026. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel, appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State respondents. Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General, appeared for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, while Mr. N. Upadhyay appeared as the Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department/respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. Seven petitioners have joined in this petition with the following prayers:- “to show cause as to why a writ in the Nature of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction of like nature should not be issued, thereby setting aside and quashing i) the impugned communication issued under Memo IGN(E)137/2020/44 No. dated 27/06/2022 issued by the Under Secretary (E) to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department to the Accountant General (A&E) Assam so far as the same relates to refusal to grant pension to the petitioners; (ii) Clause B(x) of the Notification No.FPC.12/2017/4 dated 06/07/2017 issued by the Finance (PRU) Department, Government of Assam so far as same relates to the present petitioners; and/or to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction of like nature should not be issued directing the respondent authority (i) to release the regular pension alongwith remaining retirement benefits payable to the petitioners against the service rendered by petitioners; (ii) not to make any recovery from the retirement benefits of the petitioners; call for the records and upon perusal thereof and upon hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass such further or other order/s as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper.” 3. The facts, as reflected in the petition, are that the petitioners had been initially appointed in the Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation on different dates. Pursuant to a policy decision, the Corporation was closed in the year 2003, and the services of 262 employees were absorbed into the Irrigation Department under the Government of Assam. The facts, as reflected in the petition, are that the petitioners had been initially appointed in the Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation on different dates. Pursuant to a policy decision, the Corporation was closed in the year 2003, and the services of 262 employees were absorbed into the Irrigation Department under the Government of Assam. As per the notification dated 13.05.2005, which was issued to give effect to the formal absorption of the petitioners, along with others, the absorbed employees would have to sign an undertaking individually regarding their giving up of claim of seniority in the Irrigation Department for the past services rendered under the Corporation before joining the Irrigation Department, and that no equalization of pay would be entertained with the employees of the Irrigation Department. The petitioners thereafter joined their services in the Irrigation Department. 4. The Government of Assam was pleased to notify the Assured Career Progression Scheme for the State Government Employees by notification dated 25.11.2011. One of the conditions enumerated at Clause 5 (XXX) in the aforesaid Career Progression Scheme was to the effect that the past services rendered by an employee in another state government/statutory body or autonomous body or public sector organization or SLPE before appointment in the State Government would not be counted towards regular service to be granted the benefits of the ACP scheme. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that three of the petitioners, namely, petitioner No. 1, was granted the benefits under the scheme in the year 2012, and petitioners Nos. 2 and 7 were granted the benefit of the ACP scheme in the year 2014, and petitioner No. 6 was given the benefits of the ACP scheme in the years 2012 and 2014, respectively. 6. By another notification dated 06.07.2017, the State Government notified the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. In the said scheme, there was again a provision at Clause B(X) where it was specified that the services rendered in a public sector undertaking or services rendered under any other state public sector undertaking, autonomous body, state-level public enterprise, or any other statutory body shall not be counted for the grant of benefits under the MACP scheme. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 were thereafter granted the benefits under the MACP scheme in the year 2017 and 2019 respectively, by taking into account the past services rendered by them in the ASMIDC. 7. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 were thereafter granted the benefits under the MACP scheme in the year 2017 and 2019 respectively, by taking into account the past services rendered by them in the ASMIDC. 7. The petitioners have all retired from their services between 2021 and 2023. The writ petition had been preferred in the year 2023, when some of the petitioners were still serving, and subsequently, all the petitioners now stand retired. 8. In view of the arguments led by the learned counsel for the parties, the prayers made in the writ petition require a scrutiny before the merits of the submissions are considered. The reference to the prayers made by the petitioners has been necessary at this stage since, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had a prima facie view that the relief, if any, to be granted to the petitioners, may require modification at the end of the day. 9. By the first prayer quoted above, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 27.6.2022, which is annexed as Annexure G to the petition. The communication is reproduced below for ready reference: 10. The order dated 27.06.2022 does not relate to any of the petitioners herein. Further, the said order does not deny pension even to the incumbent in whose reference the letter dated 27.06.2022 was issued. In the opinion of this Court, the said communication does not deserve interference in this litigation, and accordingly, the prayer for setting aside the said communication is declined. 11. The prayer of the petitioners to restrain the respondents from making any recovery from the retirement benefit of the petitioners is considered next. No proposal to make any recovery from the retirement benefit of the petitioners has been brought on record in this litigation. Thus, while declining to issue any blanket order restraining the respondents from making recovery of all kinds, this Court expects that the respondents, who are role model employers, would not propose to make any recovery from the retirement benefits of the petitioners without following the due process of law and without giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposal to make such recovery. 12. 12. With regard to the prayer of the petitioner for the release of the regular pension, the same will be considered along with the prayer of the petitioners to set aside the impugned provision of the notification dated 06.07.2017 issued by the Finance(PRU) department, insofar as it relates to the petitioner. 13. Referring to the genesis of the present petition, Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that after the petitioners had been granted the benefits of the ACP and the MACP schemes in the year 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2019, they continued to serve the department to the best of their abilities. However, by a communication dated 27.06.2022, which was with regard to another person who was similarly situated as that of the petitioners, the Under Secretary of the Government of Assam in the Irrigation Department had informed the Accountant General, Assam that the past service rendered in public sector undertaking or any other state public sector undertaking or autonomous bodies or state level public sector public enterprises or any other statutory body was not to be counted for the purposes of grant of benefits under the MACP scheme. Accordingly, the service book (in original) of the incumbent concerned in that letter was returned to the Accountant General for needful action. 14. By a letter dated 26.08.2022, the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Assam, had informed the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Irrigation Department that the past service rendered by the petitioner No. 1 in this petition, in the ASMIDC, had also been taken into account while granting him the benefit under the ACP scheme. By referring to the earlier communications, the Senior Accounts Officer of the Accountant General, Assam had stated that as per the notification dated 13.05.2005, the past service of the petitioner No. 1 was required to be counted for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits only, but the past service under the ASMIDC were also taken into account while granting ACPs benefits to the officers who were absorbed in the Irrigation Department. In view of the above, the Government in the Irrigation Department was requested to confirm whether the past service of the petitioner was required to be counted for benefits of the ACP scheme and thereafter, to resubmit the pension proposal of the petitioner No.1 with the Government decision to enable the Office of the Accountant General to take further necessary action. 15. By another communication dated 23.12.2022, the Deputy Accountant General (Pension) in the office of the Principal Accountant General, Assam, had communicated with the Secretary of Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, bringing to his notice that a good number of non-gazetted retired employees, who had been regularized as a part of the 262 number of employees, who were absorbed from the erstwhile Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation against sanctioned vacant post under the Irrigation Department, have been granted retirement benefits. Further, the Office of the Accountant General had raised a query regarding the reason for the denial of counting of past services for benefits under the ACP and MACP scheme, when incremental benefit from time to time was found admissible to 262 employees on the ground of past services rendered by them in the erstwhile ASMIDC Limited. It was further informed by the aforesaid communication that the pension cases of around 50 to 60 non-gazetted employees out of the 262 employees had already been finalized by the Office of the Accountant General for the past couple of years, based on the MACP benefit already given to the aforesaid persons who had later superannuated. The office of the Accountant General had also communicated that the possibility of recovery at this stage from those pensioners would not be possible. 16. When the Government in the Irrigation Department did not respond to the communication dated 23.12.2022, and the pension of the petitioners who had already retired was kept on hold, and those who were yet to retire could realize that their pensionary benefits may also be held up due to the lack of clarification by the State Government, this petition was initiated. 17. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that there is no dispute between any of the contesting parties that the petitioners were paid the financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with respect to each of the petitioners. 17. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that there is no dispute between any of the contesting parties that the petitioners were paid the financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with respect to each of the petitioners. He has further submitted that the notification dated 13.05.2005, which gave effect to the absorption of the petitioners herein, put a bar on the absorbed employees from claiming equalization of pay and seniority in the Irrigation Department and apart from that, there was nothing in the said notification that barred the petitioners from claiming any other benefit for their past services. The learned counsel has submitted that this absence of any bar from claiming other benefits was the reason for the department to have consciously decided to pay them the benefits under the ACPs and MACP scheme by taking into account their past services rendered in the ASMIDC. The learned counsel has submitted that once the State Government has taken a conscious decision to grant the ACP and MACP benefits to the petitioners, the State would be estopped from taking a stand that the petitioners were not entitled to such benefits. 18. The second limb of the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government, after considering the past services of the employee for the purposes of paying pensionary benefits, etc., cannot refuse to take into account the said period for the purposes of payment of the benefits under the Career Progression Scheme. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners were absorbed in service by protecting their salary, and their appointments were not fresh appointments. The learned counsel argues that the bar imposed by Clause 5 (XXX) of the ACP scheme and Clause X of the MACP scheme would be applicable only for those employees of the corporations/PSUs who were freshly appointed pursuant to a selection process and who had earlier served in a corporation or in a public sector undertaking. The learned counsel submits that in similar situations, the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Mahendra Jha Vs. State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1937/2019) and the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Krishna Kanta Mukherjee Vs. The learned counsel submits that in similar situations, the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Mahendra Jha Vs. State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1937/2019) and the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Krishna Kanta Mukherjee Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online Jhar 4314 , have held once the past service of an incumbent is considered for the purposes of grant of benefit of pension and post retiral benefits, there would not be any impediment in counting the same services for grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Schemes. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi had held that the service prior to absorption should be counted for the calculation of the requisite service for ACP/MACP benefits, because, on the same analogy, the service had been considered to be valid for the grant of pension. 19. The third limb of the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had been paid their benefits under the relevant Career Progression Schemes for a long time and in the meantime, they have adjusted to their salaries. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the authority cannot now be allowed to retrospectively fix their salary after superannuation, since such an act would have drastic civil consequences. Referring to the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1909 , the learned counsel has submitted that the Apex Court has held that any steps of reduction in pay scale and recovery from a government employee would amount to a punitive action. He has thereafter relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of R Rajamani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 2024 SCC Online Madras 957 , to impress that once an employee retired from service on superannuation, the employer and employee relationship comes to an end. He submits that in such circumstances, the employer would be barred from altering the pay of the employee with retrospective effect to his disadvantage. 20. Countering the aforesaid submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. He submits that in such circumstances, the employer would be barred from altering the pay of the employee with retrospective effect to his disadvantage. 20. Countering the aforesaid submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. B. Gogoi, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced by the notification dated 25.05.2011, where, in Clause XXIX, the term regular services for the purposes of the scheme had been defined. The learned counsel has submitted that the benefit under the scheme could be given twice in the entire service of a State Government employee: first one after the completion of 10 years and second one after completion of 24 years of service, if they do not get one regular promotion within the first 10 years of regular service and two regular promotions within 24 years of regular service. The learned counsel has submitted that completion of 10 and 24 years of regular service was the basic condition for a person to be entitled to the benefits of the scheme. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 5 (XXIX) of the ACP scheme, where regular service for the purposes of the ACPs has been stated to commence from the date of joining a post in the direct entry grade on a regular basis, either on a direct recruitment basis or on an absorption/reemployment basis. 21. The learned counsel has submitted that since the petitioners had joined the services of the State Government on absorption from the ASMIDC, the past service rendered in the company could not have been taken into account for the purposes of consideration for the grant of benefits under the Assured Carrier Progression Scheme. The learned Additional Advocate General has thereafter drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, which was notified by the notification dated 06.07.2017, which again contained a provision at Clause B(x) that the past service rendered in public sector undertaking, under any other state public sector undertaking, autonomous bodies, state level public enterprise or any other statutory body shall not be counted for the purposes of MACPS. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above provisions of the schemes, the petitioners were not entitled to be granted the benefits of financial upgradation in the manner in which it has been granted, and the full set of benefits remains liable to be revoked. It has been further submitted that on such revocation of the financial benefits granted under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, the pay of the petitioners is liable to be revised, and the pensionary benefits are liable to be fixed according to the revised pay. 22. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, and perused the documents and records relied upon. 23. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering WA No. 183/2017, titled Sri Dinadayal Rabha and 48 Ors Vs. the State of Assam, in its order dated 15.02.2018, had traced the history of the employees of the ASMIDC, where the employees were either allowed to take voluntary retirement under a VRS scheme, or opt to be considered for absorption into Government service. 262 employees had exercised their option to be considered for absorption into Government departments, and the petitioners form a part of such 262 employees. The relevant portion of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court is quoted here and below for ease of reference: “(at paragraph 2): The appellants were employees of a Government company called the Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (in short, ASMIDC). The financial health of ASMIDC having received severe setback, the Government of Assam examined winding up of ASMIDC. In this regard, a proposal was initially made for creation of a separate ground water wing in the Irrigation Department for absorbing the officers and staff of ASMIDC. In all, there were 564 numbers of employees in ASMIDC. At the initiative of the Irrigation Department, endeavor was made to absorb all the employees in various State Government departments, which eventually did not fructify as the departments concerned expressed their inability. The Irrigation Department on its own calculated the existing vacancies of analogous posts which came to 262 nos. Accordingly, the Managing Director of ASMIDC submitted proposal for absorption of 262 numbers of employees of ASMIDC in the Irrigation Department and for granting benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to the rest of the employees. The Irrigation Department on its own calculated the existing vacancies of analogous posts which came to 262 nos. Accordingly, the Managing Director of ASMIDC submitted proposal for absorption of 262 numbers of employees of ASMIDC in the Irrigation Department and for granting benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to the rest of the employees. In this regard, the Assam Government State Cabinet decided on 25.02.2004 that out of the total 564 employees, 262 were to be absorbed in the Irrigation Department and 302 to be granted VRS benefits. The appellants herein were included in the list of VRS beneficiaries. Following the Cabinet decision, consequential Notification dated 13.05.2005 was issued by the Government of Assam in the Irrigation Department for absorption of the aforesaid 262 employees.” (At paragraph 9) : The Speaking Order dated 03.10.2012 also explains as to how 262 nos. of employees were chosen for absorption. The reason given is that same number of vacancies existed in analogous posts in the Irrigation Department.” 24. There is no dispute that the petitioners herein belong to the batch of 262 incumbents who were absorbed pursuant to the notification dated 13.05.2005. The ACP scheme of 2011 and the MACP scheme of 2017 were introduced several years after the petitioners were absorbed from the ASMIDC into the Irrigation Department of the Government of Assam. The schemes aimed at removing the stagnation of incumbents in their posts for several years without the appreciation of promotions being granted even to meritorious government servants, only because there were no posts available in the hierarchy. The schemes provided only financial upgradations to eligible employees, contemplating placement on a personal basis in the immediate higher-Grade payment, for financial benefit only, without amounting to actual functional promotion of the employee concerned. The schemes neither bestowed regular promotion nor required creation of new post(s) for this purpose. The period of regular service spent by an incumbent on the same post, without being afforded an opportunity of promotion only due to lack of post in the hierarchy, coupled with the competency of the incumbent to secure promotion were the relevant factors when considering him for the grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. 25. In the scheme of 2011, regular service has been defined at Clause 5(XXIX). 25. In the scheme of 2011, regular service has been defined at Clause 5(XXIX). Regular service for the purposes of the ACP scheme was defined to commence from the date of joining a post in direct entry grade, on a regular basis, either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employment basis. Service rendered as adhoc or contract basis before regular employment on pre- appointment training was not to be taken into reckoning. However, past continuous regular service in another Government department in a post carrying the same grade pay prior to regular appointment in a new department without a break was to be counted towards qualifying regular services for the purpose of ACPs only and not for regular promotion. Clause 5 (XXX) stated that the past service rendered by a Government employee in another state government/statutory body/autonomous body/public sector organization/ SLPE before appointment in the State Government shall not be counted towards regular service. As per the scheme of 2017, which was named as the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, in the event an employee is transferred from one department to another department in the same pay scale, the services in the previous department and promotion availed during that period were also to be counted for deciding the benefit under the MACPS. It was also provided that past service rendered in public sector undertaking, under any other state public sector undertaking, autonomous body, state-level public enterprise, or any other statutory body would not be counted for the purposes of MACP. 26. From a conjoint reading of the provisions relating to the manner in which the length of service of an incumbent is required to be taken into account for the purposes of the two schemes, it is noticed that the schemes sought to give benefit to incumbents who had joined a post either on a direct recruitment basis or on an absorption or re-employment basis. Past continuous service in another Government department in a post was also to be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purposes of the scheme. 27. Past continuous service in another Government department in a post was also to be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purposes of the scheme. 27. To the understanding of this Court, the provisions of the scheme was not to be made applicable to incumbents, who had joined a particular post on his own volition by migrating from a public sector undertaking, a state public sector undertaking, an autonomous body, a state-level public enterprise, or any other statutory body seeking an advancement in his career so as to join regular Government service. The ACP scheme itself had clarified that regular service would be counted from the date of joining on absorption basis also. In the present case, it is noticed that when the ASMIDC was required to be brought to a closure by the respondent Government, options were given to the employees to either choose to retire from services by resorting to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or to continue their service by choosing to be absorbed into a department, albeit by losing their seniority in the absorbing department. The conscious decision of the respondent Government to allow the absorbed employees to enjoy the benefits of continued service is apparent from the order dated 13.05.2005, where the employees so absorbed were granted the benefit of fixation of pay under FR 52, (I)(B) of the FR and SR and they were also entitled to pensionary benefits, as admissible under the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969, on their absorption. The only disadvantage imposed on the absorbed employees was requiring them to give up claims of seniority in the absorbing department, as well as the claim for equalization of pay with the employees of the absorbing department. The requirement of giving up the claim of seniority was to avoid disadvantage to the employees already serving in the absorbing department and the requirement of giving up a claim for equalization of pay was to ensure that no career advancement would bestow upon the absorbed employees in the form of an increase in the pay drawn. 28. In the opinion of this Court, when the service rendered in the earlier organisation had been taken for consideration for the entitlement for the grant of pensionary benefits, there can be no reason to deny the absorbed employees the benefit of the same period while considering stagnancy in their service. 29. 28. In the opinion of this Court, when the service rendered in the earlier organisation had been taken for consideration for the entitlement for the grant of pensionary benefits, there can be no reason to deny the absorbed employees the benefit of the same period while considering stagnancy in their service. 29. This Court has found a useful reference in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Deepak Sood and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4446/2008), decided on 15.07.2008, where a similar issue had been addressed. The respondents in that case were employees of the Municipal Committee. Subsequent to the closure of the particular branch of the Municipal Committee, they were absorbed in the Education Department of the State. The State Government had taken a stand that the respondents had not completed 10 years of service in the State of Haryana and therefore, the respondents/absorbed employees would not be entitled to the benefit of ACP grade. The Apex Court had held that it was a clear indication in the absorption orders that the absorbed employees would lose only their seniority, but their past service had been counted for fixation of pay as well as for pensionary benefits. The Apex Court observed that the “ACP grade” was introduced subsequently. It was observed that it was a misfortune that the employees had been declared surplus in the Municipal Committee, but the Government had been benevolent by absorbing them in the State Government, although denying them the benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority. It was held that once the Government considered the absorbed employees eligible for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits and counted their past service for the aforementioned purposes, there could be no reason why ACP grade could be denied to them. It was held that having lost, at one hand, their seniority in the new department, it would be unfair to deny the benefit of ACP grade also. It was held that having lost, at one hand, their seniority in the new department, it would be unfair to deny the benefit of ACP grade also. The Apex Court observed that in the series of Judgments given by the Apex Court, the consistent view had been that in case of absorption from one department to another or from public sector to state, though the benefit of seniority had been denied to the incumbent, without denying other benefits like pay fixation and pensionary benefits, there could be no reason why the past service could not be counted for the grant of the Assured Career Progression scheme. 30. This Court has already expressed the opinion that the ACP and MACP scheme intended to provide respite from stagnation in service. It may be true that the benefits of the ACP or MACP scheme can be denied to persons who migrated their services to others in pursuit of a career advancement, but not for incumbents who had to shift their services, not because they sought a career advancement, but because the organization itself had to be closed down and they were offered absorption into another department. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondent authorities in attempting to deny the benefit of the past services rendered by the petitioners herein in their parent organization for the purposes of availing ACP/MACP benefits after absorption cannot have the seal of approval from this Court. 31. Another aspect of the matter needs to be discussed. The petitioners were admittedly granted the benefits of the ACP scheme and the MACP scheme, as per their respective entitlements and they continued to enjoy the benefits so bestowed upon them till the time that they superannuated from service. It has not been denied by the State respondent that similarly situated absorbed employees had also enjoyed such benefits, not only during their service period but their retirement benefits had also been calculated and disbursed, without interfering in the benefits bestowed upon them due to the aforesaid two schemes. It has not been denied by the State respondent that similarly situated absorbed employees had also enjoyed such benefits, not only during their service period but their retirement benefits had also been calculated and disbursed, without interfering in the benefits bestowed upon them due to the aforesaid two schemes. Rather, it is the admitted position that such superannuated absorbed employees still continue to draw their pensionary benefits, without being subjected to any revision of their entitlements and the State respondents have also admitted that it would neither be possible nor justifiable to order re-fixation of pensionary benefits for those employees or to effectuate any recovery from them. There is no doubt that the employer would remain entitled to correctly fix the pay of serving or retired employees and to make recoveries where necessary but then, the exercise of such authority has also to be done in a just and equitable manner. There is no quarrel amongst the parties to this petition that recovery of excess alleged pay would be barred under certain conditions, some of which were enunciated in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 . The probable situations as enumerated by the Apex Court, are quoted here below for ease of reference:- “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. (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.” 32. In the present case, the grants of the benefits under the Career Progression Schemes were not at the behest of the petitioners' herein and such benefits had been granted to the petitioners during their service tenure, in some cases, even nine years before they attained the age of superannuation. In the opinion of this Court, it would neither be just nor equitable to allow the respondent authorities to make attempts to withdraw such benefits already granted and/or to allow the respondent authorities to refix the pensionary benefits of the petitioners herein after such benefits had been granted a long time ago than when the petitioners have already superannuated from their service. 33. In the conclusion, this Court accepts the proposition that the petitioners were entitled to have their past services rendered in the ASMIDC to be taken into account for the purposes of being considered for the grant of the benefits of the ACP and the MACP scheme, and that such benefits which had already been granted do not require any interference now at the hand of the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities would now be under an obligation to finalize the pensionary benefits of the petitioners without revisiting their entitlements already drawn under the ACP and the MACP scheme, and the respondents should also be restrained from making any recovery from the petitioners on the basis of alleged wrongful grant of the benefits under the two schemes to the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. 34. This Court has been informed that the petitioners are drawing their provisional pension. The respondent authorities would now expedite the process for the grant of regular pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioners to ensure that all such benefits are released to the petitioners within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 35. The respondent authorities would now expedite the process for the grant of regular pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioners to ensure that all such benefits are released to the petitioners within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 35. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.