Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1504 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the orders dated 31.12.2024 and 21.01.2025 passed by the opposite party no.3 as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to this Writ Petition as well as the Letter dated 02.12.2024 issued by the opposite party no.2, after summoning the same. (ii) A writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to immediately release the post retiral dues of the petitioner such as the Commutation of Pension, Group Insurance, Full Pension and 10% of Gratuity." 3. In the present writ petition, recovery of certain amount has been made from salary of the petitioner, who is working on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) (Class III Post). On account of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, by mistake, resulting in excess payment to the petitioner determined by order dated 31.12.2024 for the period 01.10.2008 to 01.07.2024. 4. 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." 5. Since, the controversy involved is short and legal in nature hence the petition itself is being finally disposed of as no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending has been redetermined by the impugned order dated 31.12.2024. In consequence thereof, the recovery was made from the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 21.01.2025. 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. 6. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision/law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), particularly by condition no. (i) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted in the earlier paragraph, which the learned State Counsel has been unable to distinguish. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the impugned orders dated 21.01.2025 are hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 (annexure No.1 to this petition) refixing the salary of the petitioner with retrospective effect in accordance with remedy available to him under law. 9. Respondent no. 3, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya is directed to ensure the payment which has been withheld or recovered from the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. [Manish Kumar Nigam,J.] Order Date :- 5.2.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench