Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45134-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 39 of 2022 Appellant :- Nagar Nigam, Lko. Through Its Nagar Aayukt And Another Respondent :- Surya Prashad Shukla Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ghaus Beg,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and having gone thorough the records including the impugned judgment what comes out is that, according to the appellant, some excess salary was paid at the time of its revision wayback in September, 2009 and it continued to be paid till the retirement of the respondent on 30.11.2019. It is not the case of the appellant that at any time before making the payment of excess salary, as claimed, any undertaking was taken in 2009 or prior to it that he will refund any excess salary paid to him, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267; High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh wherein an exception has been carved out to the application of the law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih; (2015) 4 SCC 334 in a situation such as the one presented before Hon'ble the Supreme Court where 'the Officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded' and the Officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale which bound him, a situation which is not present in this case rather before his retirement on 30.11.2019 barely few days ago in the context of payment of post retiral dues an undertaking was taken from the respondent that if any excess payment is made the same would be refunded by him, but, this undertaking was taken with regard to the post retiral dues and not the excess salary which was the subject matter of the writ petition before the writ Court, therefore, the aforesaid judgment does not help the appellant rather it helps the respondent. In view of this, we do not find any error with the judgment of the writ Court, especially as, the recovery has been made from gratuity without any notice to the respondent, especially as, the recovery/deduction has been effected after retirement of the respondent who held a Class III post. In any case, in view of the law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) as clarified/explained in the subsequent judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), we do not find it a case for interference in an intra Court appeal. The special appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall now comply the judgment of the writ Court in terms mentioned therein. [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench