Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15089 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2850 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Kant Shukla 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 Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1987 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 2004 and further he was promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector on 01.04.2008 and again he was promoted on the post of Inspector in the year 2018 and is due for superannuation on 30.06.2027. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to the impugned order whereby the respondents have refixed the salary of the petitioner from 01.01.2006 onwards stating that he was wrongly granted the financial benefit which has been sought to be withdrawn and the excess amount has been sought to be recovered. It has been submitted that the petitioner was never afforded opportunity of hearing before passing of the said order and accordingly relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih versus State of Punjab reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein it has been held that no recovery can be made from the petitioner inasmuch the petitioner belongs to Class-3 post. 4. The order impugned herein 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 2006 onwards can be revisited after expiry of more than 18 years. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. The respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 27.01.2025. 6. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law and the fresh order would be valid only for the purposes of payment of further salary to the petitioner and not for the purposes of making any recovery from him. 7. Any amount recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order shall be refunded forthwith with an interest @ 8 % per anuum. 8. With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed . [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 12.3.2025 KR 2 WRIA No. 2850 of 2025 Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench