As per case facts, the petitioner, an organising staff member, secured approval for his appointment from 2001 after a writ petition. He completed 18 years of continuous service and applied ... for Career Advancement Scheme benefits. However, the authorities denied incremental benefits beyond five years, citing his lack of a B.Ed. degree, and directed recovery of alleged overdrawn amounts, despite his service approval being prior to the B.Ed. requirement. This led to a second writ petition. The question arose whether the petitioner, who received annual increments for over eighteen years without any fault or misrepresentation on his part, was entitled to receive those increments, and if the recovery of alleged excess payments by the employer was permissible under law, especially given his retirement. Finally, the Court found that the alleged error in pay fixation was raised only after eighteen years of service and was solely attributable to the administrative authorities, not the petitioner. Citing Supreme Court precedents against recovery from retired employees, or for payments made over five years ago where no fraud is involved, the Court ruled that recovery of the alleged excess payment would be wholly unjustified and impermissible. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the authorities to release all pensionary benefits with arrears and interest, without any recovery of the alleged excess payments.