Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48215 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt.Siddiqua Begum Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Technical Edu. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Verma,Anamika Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.B.S. Rathaur Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Shri R.B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that although he had challenged the order dated 12.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, as well as Government Order dated 24.05.2019 but he does not intend to press on the writ petition so far as it pertains to raising a challenge to the Government Order dated 24.05.2019 and prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn to that extent. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn so far as it pertains to raising a challenge to the Government Order dated 24.05.2019. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2019 while working as Senior Lecturer. Initially the respondents have issued order dated 05.12.2019, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents have stopped the commutation amount of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner had filed claim petition no. 1399 of 2020 before learned Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. During pendency of the claim application the respondents passed order dated 12.11.2020 as impugned herein and accordingly the said claim petition was not pressed on 06.08.2021. 5. So far as the order impugned dated 12.11.2020 is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334 to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no amount can be recovered towards excess payment of salary etc from a retired employee. 6. The contention is once the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2019, by means of order impugned dated 12.11.2020 i.e. an order passed subsequent to retirement of the petitioner the respondents are seeking to recover an excess amount of Rs 4.30 lakhs allegedly drawn as excess which has already been adjusted and recovered from the commutation amount as due to the petitioner consequently keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) the respondents cannot recover the aforesaid amount and the said amount has to be paid back to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and Shri R.B.S. Rathore do not dispute the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 8. It is also not the case of the respondents that the excess amount has been drawn by the petitioner on account of any fraud or misrepresentation committed by her. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held as under; "12. 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. From perusal of the aforesaid judgement it emerges that that no amount can be recovered from a retired employee on account of excess payment made to the employee during the service. 11. Accordingly, considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.11.2010, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is quashed. 12. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs 4.30 lakhs recovered by them. The said amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. While refunding the amount the respondents shall also consider payment of interest to the petitioner at admissible rates. Order Date :- 18.8.2025/J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench