Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22976 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3978 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (Pno - 842661227) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Police Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Nasir,Abhishek Khare,Mohd. Yasir,Navneet Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. Through this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- "(i) ममनननय उचच नयमयमलय एक आददश व ननदरश उतपदषण (CERTIORARI) पकक नत कम पमररत कर नवपकन ससखयम-4 दमरम यमचन कद वदतन कक पपनरननरमररत करनद ससबसरन आददश नदनमसक 31-12 -2024 यमनचकम कद ससलगक ससखयम-1, तथम ससलगक ससखयम-2 पत नदनमसक 21-01-2025, जजसकद दमरम र05,27,964-00 (र0 पमसच लमख सतमईस हजमर नन सन चनसठ ममत) वससलन हदतप ननररत हह कक ननरसत कर 18 पनतशत वयमज सनहत वमपस करनद तथम अनय समसत सदवम समबनरन लमभ पदमन करनद हदतप नवपकनरण कक आददनशत करनद कक कक पम कक जमय।" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2008, after completing 24 years of service, the petitioner's pay was re-fixed and enhanced in accordance with the applicable rules. This enhancement was not the result of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner, who retired from the Class-III post on 31.07.2024 as a Sub-Inspector from Civil Police, was never issued any notice or faced any proceedings regarding the fixation of pay during his service tenure. However, post-retirement, an order dated 31.07.2025, as contained in Annexure-2, was issued directing recovery of an amount of 5,27,964/- from the petitioner. This recovery order has been ₹ challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary and contrary to the settled law. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions, opposed the petition. However, he could not dispute the settled legal principle that no recovery can be made from a retired Class III or IV employee, especially when the employee was not at fault and had not given any undertaking with regard to pay fixation during his service. 5. Perused the record as well as the written instructions provided by learned Standing Counsel. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that after retirement, the petitioner's pay was revised from 64,100/- as per the office order dated 31.07.2024. Based on this ₹ revision, a recovery of 5,27,964 was directed. However, in light of the ₹ judgment referred to above, such recovery is not sustainable. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner retired as a Class III employee. It is also not in disputed by the State that the pay was re-fixed in the year 2008 while the petitioner was in service and no objection was raised at that time. After his retirement in 2024, the impugned recovery order was issued. On the issue of recovery, after examining the previous decisions, the Apex court in the case of State of Punjab and others: Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others : (2015) 4 SCC 334, had taken the view that in certain situations, recovery would be impermissible. Those situations have been enumerated in paragraph 18 of the judgement, which is extracted below:- "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. " 8. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that such higher pay was given to the petitioner on account of any fraud or misrepresentation committed by him, thus, in view of the aforesaid judgement of Rafiq Masih (supra) the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.1.2025 by which the order for recovery of amount of Rs.5,27,964/- (Annexure-2) has been issued, is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, deducted from the post retiral dues of the petitioner shall be refunded to him along with interest @ 8% within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench