Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137075 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6412 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pushpendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Upadhyaya(Senior Adv.) Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed for following relief: "i). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned report dated 28-11- 2006 (annexed as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition) ii). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 (annexed as Annexure No.7 to this writ petition) iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 (annexed as Annexure No.8 to this writ petition). iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 6.7.2017 (annexed as Annexure No.10 to this writ petition). v.) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to grant him 3rd promotional pay grade counting his second pay grade as 4200 and to pay the consequential benefits w.e.f 1.12.2015.." 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Purchase Assistant on 01.12.1989 in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (revised from the year 1996 in pay scale 4500-7000) in the BIET Jhansi and since then he is continuously working on the said post. On the report of the pay committee, pay scale of the Purchase Assistant was revised in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 (Rs. 9300-34800 and grade pay Rs. 4200). When the pay scale of the petitioner has not been revised as per the Government Order dated 17.6.2010, the petitioner made a representation to the Director of the Institute for fixation of his salary as per the said government order and also for the benefits of A.C.P. Thereafter, Director of the Institute constituted a three members' committee. The said committee submitted a report before the Director on 6.10.2010, which was accepted. Subsequently, the benefits of A.C.P. w.e.f. 1.12.2008 as per the government order was provided to the petitioner and hence, his salary was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 and grade pay Rs. 4600/- In pursuance of the Government Order dated 31.05.2011, the Director of the Institute passed an order dated 16.11.2011, whereby the petitioner's grade pay was upgraded from Rs. 4600 to Rs. 4800 and after completing 16 years' service, the petitioner was provided benefits of second A.C.P. in pay grade of Rs. 5400/-. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 30.05.2017, cancelled the order dated 02.12.2008 and 26.10.2010 passed by the then Director. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pay fixation was taken on the basis of the orders issued by the State Government, but without applying his mind, the respondent no. 2 has cancelled the same, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent authorities have not considered the Government Orders dated 9.3.2010, 17.6.2010, 31.05.2011, 24.03.2015 and 12.07.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide order dated 13.09.2017 order for recovery of Rs.6,99,833/- was directed to be made from the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33. 5. Admittedly, facts are not in dispute but learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33, as the respondent did not consider any factual aspect, it is only negligence on the part of the respondent herein while fixing his pay scale and hence, is not entitled for any recovery. 6. Considering the submissions and the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), since the petitioner did not conceal any material while he was granted promotion, it was apparent negligible act of the respondents while fixing the pay scale of the petitioner, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by respondent no.2 (Director, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering and Technology Jhansi (BIET Jhansi) directing deduction of Rs.6,99,833/- is set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad