Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38933 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4718 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surendra Bahadur Singh, Pno.No.- 802470605 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Pratap Singh,Prashant Singh Chauhan,Surya Deep Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th December, 2020 whereby recovery has been made from pensionary benefits of petitioner. Further prayer for refund of Rs. 2,04,572/- has been sought alongwith interest. 4. Earlier on 7th May, 2025, following order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The instructions provided by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are taken on record. It is submitted that the petitioner has given an undertaking to the effect that in case any excess amount is found to have been paid to him on account of wrong fixation, he will have no objection to its recovery. 3. However, a perusal of the written instructions provided by the State does not reflect the date on which the said undertaking was given by the petitioner. As is evident from the written instructions, the alleged wrong fixation was made on 22.01.2013, and instead of Grade Pay ?4600/-, ?4800/- was granted under the Third ACP. 4. Let a personal affidavit be filed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, within a period of three weeks, specifically stating the date on which the undertaking was given by the petitioner. The affidavit shall also include a para-wise reply to the contents of the writ petition. 5. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. 6. List on 02.07.2025 as fresh." 5. In pursuance thereof, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 and in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it has been specifically stated that when documents related to option for recovery allegedly given by petitioner were perused, no such option letter was found. The said paragraph also indicates that such an option was given by petitioner only at the time of sending of pension proposal. 6. The aforesaid affidavit clearly indicates the fact that no option pertaining to recovery from his pensionary benefits was ever provided by him in the year 2013 when allegedly incorrect pay fixation was made. 7. Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (white washer) and others 2015(4) SCC 334 has held as follows:- "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. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that there is no role attributed to petitioner in incorrect fixation of his pay scale in 2013 nor was any such option given by him permitting recovery from his pensionary benefits at that time. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of judgment indicated herein above, the order dated 27th December, 2020 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further direction in the nature of Mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.2,04,572/- to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date when it was made to the date of actual payment shall made with direction for same being made by the concerned authority within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority. 10. Consequently the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench