HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5723 of 2022 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, the State has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.02.2022 passed in Claim Petition No.1792 of 2017 by which the Tribunal has quashed the orders dated 21.09.2015, 29.10.2015 and 28.12.2015 by means of which recovery of Rs.7,57,182/= was made from respondent no.1 from his gratuity allegedly in pursuance of application dated 29.12.2015 given by him, copy of which is on record. 3. On bare reading of the said application we find that it has been given under compulsion by respondent no.1 as his pension papers were not being prepared and the same was not being released and he had been asked to deposit the aforesaid amount, which according to the department has been paid in excess. 4. It is not the case of the State that there was any fraud or misrepresentation by respondent no.1 herein in getting the excess salary paid. It is also not the case that respondent no.1 was himself the drawing and disbursing authority. The Tribunal has considered the law on the subject and in the facts of the case has quashed the impugned orders and directed for refund of the amount recovered from the gratuity of respondent no.1, which in any case was impermissible, as there is no provision under which such recovery could be made from the gratuity in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vibhuti Shukla, Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Shikhar Anand State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others .....Petitioner(s) Ravi Shankar Shukla And Another .....Respondent(s) the facts of this case and it is not the case of petitioners herein that any proceedings under Regulation 351 of Civil Service Regulations had been initiated against respondent no.1, which infact would not be attracted unless the grounds mentioned therein are satisfied. There was no stay in this writ petition and respondent no.1 has retired way back in 2015. The impugned order of recovery was passed after the retirement of respondent no.1, who was a Class III employee. 5. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in the facts of this case. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 24, 2025 Manish Himwan WRIA No. 5723 of 2022 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench