Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24789-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 179 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Respondent :- Shyam Kishore Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Singh Vishen Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C.M. Application No.IA/1 of 2025 : Delay Condonation Application) 1. This intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is delayed by 112 days. The appeal is filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit. 2. Reasons spelt out for condonation of delay are just and plausible. 3. Cause shown is sufficient. 4. In absence of any objection, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. (Order on appeal) 5. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate along with Sri Avinash Singh Vishen, Advocate on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the State-appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 7. This intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ A No. 4568 of 2024. By means of the same, the writ Court set aside the order dated 07.03.2024, whereby recovery of Rs. 3,66,187/- was ordered from the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner after his retirement. 8. The writ Court, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), 2015 (4) SCC 334, made certain observations which, in our humble consideration, do not suffer from any error or illegality. The benefit of revision of pay was granted to the petitioner much before the date of his retirement and without there being any misrepresentation on the part of the respondent herein. That being the position, we are not persuaded to take a different view as regards the order of recovery, which has been set aside by the writ Court. 9. Insofar as the refixation of salary for pensionary benefits is concerned, the writ Court has left it open to the authority to do the needful after putting the respondent to a notice and taking all the pleas raised by him into account. 10. The intra-court appeal, insofar as the order of recovery is concerned, in our humble consideration, does not call for any interference. The findings/observations deserve to be affirmed, and the same are hereby affirmed. 11. The Special Appeal, being bereft of merit, is accordingly dismissed. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J) Order Date :- 30.4.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench