Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6094 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1262 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hareram Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Alina Masoodi,Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra,Rani Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is working on the post of Principal Assistant in the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management at Lucknow. It has been submitted that during the entire service petitioner was granted regular increments and promotional pay scale as and when they fell due and even after his retirement all the post retiral dues including pension have been paid. 3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after more than four years of his superannuation, the respondents by means of impugned order have sought re- fixation of salary of petitioner since 2002 onwards and all the service benefits granted to the petitioner have been sought to be revoked unilaterally. There was no occasion for the respondents to have revisited the entire payment made to the petitioner during his service period after lapse of four years of his superannuation and even otherwise, it is submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 09.11.2024. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that salary and other service benefits of a Government employee are vested right and are duly protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Once such benefits have accrued and paid to the petitioner, they cannot be revoked without rule of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the superannuated employee. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that had the respondents given him show cause notice to the petitioner, he would have demonstrated that all the benefits given to him were well calculated and were in accordance with the service conditions governing the petitioner and prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted even if facts as mentioned in the impugned order are correct and the petitioner was paid higher allowances/wages, even then he was entitled to such benefits in terms of Government Order dated 16.01.2007 and no such recovery or refixation could have been ordered beyond the period of 34 months from the date of superannuation and on this ground also the impugned order if illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the fact that no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice was given to the petitioner as no such circumstance is mentioned in the impugned order. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the bare perusal of the impugned order which is passed by the State Government after more than 3-4 years of petitioner's superannuation whereby all the service benefits including grade pay which was granted to him with effect from 01.01.2006 and even the pay scale which was sanctioned since 2002 has been revoked to the detriment of the petitioner who has superannuated from service from the post of Principal Assistant (Pradhan Sahayak) in the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management at Lucknow. 10. The issue in the present case is as to whether such allowances and benefits which were granted to the petitioner during his service, without giving any opportunity of hearing or without even demonstrating as to the infirmity in grant of such benefits to the petitioner, revoking the same is illegal and arbitrary. 11. The State is under mandate to act reasonably and fairly in the matters of public employment which are protected under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have revoked said benefits in such a manner which is clearly illegal and arbitrary and deserves interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly such illegal and arbitrary order cannot be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and once petitioner has retired, this Court see no reason as to how such benefits have been revoked. 13. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 09.11.2024, 11.11.2024 and 06.12.2024 are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. 14. It is made clear that even otherwise no recovery can be made on the basis of impugned order in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. The petitioner is covered under Clause I and II of paragraph 22 of the said judgment as he has retired from Class III post and no recovery can be made from his after his superannuation from his post reitral dues. 15. The respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 29.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench