Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2022 Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 220 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayankar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, 11.09.2024 and 17.12.2024 passed by Respondent no.2 whereby the re- determination / re-fixation of pay scale has been made which resulted in recovery of excess payment from the post retiral dues of the petitioner. 3. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334' Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department & Ors passed in Civil Appeal No.5262 of 2008 reported in MANU/SC/0330/2014 and State of U.P through Prin. Secretary, Agriculture Deptt. & Ors vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.26276 (SB) of 2020. 4. It is further submitted that Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in Para 18 of Rafiq Masih case (Supra) that recovery cannot be made from retired employees, whereas in the present case the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2024 from the post of Sub Inspector (Class III post) and impugned order of recovery has been passed after the retirement of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel is unable to distinguish applicability of the judgement of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department & Ors (Supra) and State of U.P through Prin. Secretary, Agriculture Deptt. & Ors vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma (Supra). 6. According to the petitioner, such recovery cannot be made as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334', paragraph-18 of which provides :- "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, 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. (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." 7. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is found that the pay re-fixation of the petitioner was done by the impugned orders dated 06.12.2024, 11.09.2024 and 17.12.2024 and whereby the determination has been made for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner. It is also not the case that there was any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioner in wrong fixation/redetermination of his salary. So keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner. 8. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision/law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), particularly by condition no. (i) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted in the earlier paragraph and Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department & Ors (Supra) and State of U.P through Prin. Secretary, Agriculture Deptt. & Ors vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma (Supra), which the learned State Counsel is unable to distinguish. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10.The impugned orders dated 06.12.2024, 11.09.2024 and 17.12.2024 are hereby quashed. 11. Respondent no. 2, the Superintendent of Police, District Hardoi is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 7,70,234/- and clear all post retiral benefits if it is found due to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench