Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18273 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15818 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prahlad Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Maurya,Om Prakash Gupta,Shobha Devi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Two rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of petitioner, are taken on record. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Present petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:- " (A.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 6,47,594/- and amount of Rs.44,540/- (Total Rs. 6,92,134/-) to the petitioner alongwith interest at the bank rate." 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, therefore, petition is being decided at the admission stage itself. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 4 and 5, it is stated that due to incorrect fixation of pay-scale excess payment has been made and now the same has been recovered. 6.The present petition has been filed stating that the petitioner has retired from the post of Sub-Inspector on 20.04.2022. 7. It is stated that before retirement, certain dues amounting Rs.6,92,134/- have been deducted/ recovered from the post retiral benefit which according to the petitioner is contrary to law. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 while dealing with such dispute, had framed following guidelines:- "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, summarize 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." 9. Undisputedly, case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgement of Rafiq Masih (supra) and petitioner was not responsible for fixation of incorrect pay scale and consequently for excess payment. 10. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed to release the entire deducted amount of Rs. 6,92,134/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. In case, the amount of Rs. 6,92,134/- is not released within the aforesaid period, same shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of its payment. 12. However, respondents are at liberty to file a recall application within a period of two months if this order is obtained by the petitioner by concealing material fact. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 AKT Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad