HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 26020 of 2016 Court No. - 34 (Sl.No.75) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 11.02.20216 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected and the orders dated 08.03.2011 and 24.08.2011, which were passed after the retirement of the petitioner for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay scale. 3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer in the office of Senior Prosecution Officer, District Allahabad on 02.08.1976 and thereafter he retired on 28.02.2011 from the post of Senior Prosecution Officer, Deoria. After his retirement, before releasing the retiral dues to the petitioner, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was wrongly paid the excess amount due to grant of one additional increment in terms of the Government Orders dated 02.12.2000, 20.10.2001 and 13.08.2002 and taken a written consent from the petitioner for deduction of the said excess amount paid to him due to said increment granted to the petitioner erroneously. Under the compelling circumstances as his retiral dues were at stake, the petitioner had to give the written consent and pursuant thereof an amount of Rs. 68,619/- was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had earlier approached this Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anoop Kumar Pandey, Radhey Krishna Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Prabhakar Pandit .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 29369 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2015 with a direction to the respondents to take a fresh decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. However, vide impugned order dated 11.2.2016, the said representation was rejected by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 4 SCC 334 , submits that after his retirement no amount could be recovered from him, which is claimed to be an excess amount paid to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay scale or the increments granted to him during his service period. The relevant portion of the relevant directions of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) are as under: "18. 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, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.(iii) Recovery from the 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." 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in clause-II, of the aforesaid directions. 6. In such view of the matter, the respondents could not have recovered WRIA No. 26020 of 2016 2 the aforesaid excess amount, which was paid to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay scale during his service period unless it has been categorically shown that the petitioner himself was responsible for such wrong fixation of the pay scale in any manner. 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State do not dispute the proposition of law as settled in the judgment of Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). 8. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed. 9. The orders dated 11.02.2016 and 24.08.2011 as well as order dated 08.03.2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the recovered amount of Rs. 68,619/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. May 7, 2026 Ashish Pd. WRIA No. 26020 of 2016 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad