Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4779 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 942 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikram Prakash Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rupa Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Ms. Rupa Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed on 01.04.1992 on the post of Collection Amin, Tehsil Sadar, District Sitapur and further promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector on 31.07.2018 and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. 3. It has been submitted that during his service tenure, the petitioner was given his due increments and promotions regularly. After the superannuation, the petitioner has received all the post retiral benefits except gratuity and by means of impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue and Finance), Sitapur, the entire salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed from 01.04.2008 onwards and it has also been recorded that the petitioner was wrongly granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. Neither any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner nor that the order states as to how the grade pay was wrongly fixed despite the fact that the petitioner was legally entitled to receive the said grade pay. 4. It has further been submitted that after such a long length of time, the respondents do not have any right to unilaterally revisit the salary of the petitioner without giving any opportunity nor giving any reasons for lowering the salary of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondents would proceed to recover the said amount from the salary of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the said order is in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (whitewasher), 2015 (4) SCC 334 where it has been held that recovery in respect of excess payment is impermissible from an employee after his retirement considering the fact that the petitioner was not of fault at the time such pay fixation was done in his favour. Relevant portion of the judgment is quoted herein below :- "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, 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." 6. It is stated that the petitioner is working on the post of Revenue Inspector which is a Class-III post and even if any there was some wrong fixation of the salary firstly the respondents could not have revisited the salary paid to the petitioner beyond the period of 34 months and such an order in any case could not have been passed after giving opportunity of hearing. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. It is noticed that the petitioner was initially appointed in 1992 on the post of Collection Amin and was subsequently promoted to the post Revenue Inspector and superannuated from service on 30.06.2024. The exercise of refixation of the salary has been taken much after the superannuation of the petitioner at the stage when even the most of the post retiral dues has been disbursed to the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and the said order has been passed merely on the directions of the District Magistrate. The order is clearly in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (Supra) and this Court does not understand as to why and under which provision grant of salary to the petitioner from 2008 onwards can be revisited after expiry of more than 16 years. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. The respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the pension or post retiral dues payable to the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 02.09.2024. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 11. With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench