Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46597 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5945 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vimla Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh,Amrita Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. This petition is delinked from bunch of petitions leading being WRIT - A No. - 11575 of 2024 and is taken up for hearing today, as prayed. 2. Heard Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. This petition has been filed challenging orders dated 29.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 whereby pay-scales made admissible to petitioner was revised on ground that it was inadmissible to her. Further prayer seeking a direction to opposite parties to provide salary which petitioner was getting earlier by refixing the same. 4. This Court had earlier shown concern with regard to aspect that in a number of cases, recovery orders have been issued on allegation that incorrect or excess payments were made to employees. 5. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court earlier in WRIT - A No. - 11575 of 2024, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has adverted to affidavit on behalf of State filed in the said petition and it has been submitted that with regard to aforesaid aspect, it has been decided that a portal to display the normalized pay (matters of pay fixation) under the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Finance Commission would be developed and tender-bid with regard to same has already been issued. It has been submitted that seven points or parameters which were laid down by this Court in its judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 rendered in WRIT - A No. - 5238 of 2022 [Ram Ghulam v. State of U.P and others] has been made available by the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters vide letter dated 05.08.2025 and effective steps are being taken to ensure implementation of all the seven parameters indicated by this Court. It is therefore submitted that development of portal with implementation of aforesaid seven parameters would obviate the problem which is being faced with regard to excess payment being made. 6. From material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner belongs to Class II category of employees and impugned orders have been passed withdrawing pay-scale which was made admissible to her long time ago. Ex-facie, impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of audit report(s) without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned orders, is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner nor is there any allegation that incorrect pay- fixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof were either at the behest of petitioner or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by her. 9. In view thereof, this Court finds the present dispute squarely covered by judgment in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), which is in the following terms:- "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." 10. Having regard to above, impugned orders dated 29.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering her reply. 11. Resultantly, the petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench