Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9871 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1903 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amrendra Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Saurabh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "(i) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or likewise for set-aside the order dated 25.09.2023 (contained as Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.4 and in pursuance thereof, the opposite party no.4 issued a notice for the recovery of Rs. 71,544/- from petitioner in compliance of Audit objection no.600/23.01.2018 after passing of 13 years of his retirement, in the interest of justice. (ii) It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite party no.3 & 4 to decide the representation dated 29.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner (contained as Annexure no.2), in the interest of justice. (iii) Issue any other order or direction by which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iv) Allow the cost of the Writ Petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of the Collection Amin in Revenue Department in the year of 1983 and he was superannuated from service on 31.07.2011 after completing 28 years of satisfactory service. He has further submitted that after 13 years of superannuation, by means of the impugned dated 29.06.2024, the respondent have sought the recovery of excess payment amounting Rs.71,544/- made to the petitioner on account of revision of the salary of the petitioner on acceptance to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission in the year of 2006. He has further submitted that any excess payment made to the petitioner during his service cannot be recovered from him as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 inasmuch as, the case of the petitioner is covered under the said judgement. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: "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 for, rightfully been required to work against an inferior post." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case, show-cause notice or liberty of hearing was given to petitioner before passing of the said order and re-fixing of the salary of the petitioner, consequently, on that account also, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute on the aforesaid facts. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. From the aforesaid argument, it is noticed that the petitioner has retired from the post of Collector Amin in the year of 2011 after serving for 28 years and 13 year after his superannuation, the respondent have passed the impugned order seeking to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner during his service period from 2006 onward. I find that such exercise cannot be conducted after a lapse of more than 18 years. Therefore, the recovery sought by the respondents is clearly contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra) considering the fact that the petitioner was holding a Class-III post. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 is hereby quashed. 8. In case, any recovery has been made from the pension of the petitioner, same shall be paid back to the petitioner, expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Alok Mathur,J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench