Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135519 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5062 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ishwar Saran Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition); (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to make further recovery from the salary of the petitioner, as the excess amount was paid to the petitioner on account of wrong calculation of the office of the institution; (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.4,540/- of the months November and December 2016 from the salary of the petitioner." 3. As an interim order in favour of the petitioner has already been passed on 03.02.2017, which reads as below:- "It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged excess amount was paid to the petitioner for more than 5 years before the order for recovery was passed and thus, it cannot be done, in view of clause 3 of paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others: (2015) 4 SSC 334. Having regard to the said submission, it is hereby directed that further recovery in pursuance of impugned order shall not be made till the next date of listing." 4. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court and the same was decided by the judgment dated 29.05.2017 in Writ Petition Service Single No.9395 of 2017 (Rajendra Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). 5. Admittedly, facts are not in dispute but learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33, as the 3rd respondent did not consider any factual aspect while passing the impugned order. 6. In view of the categorical judgment on a similar issue raised, the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents shall refund the amount of Rs.4,540/- to the petitioner and the recovery is stayed in pursuance of the excess amount paid to the petitioner due to mis-calculation by the office of Institution which is not at the part of the petitioner. While doing so, the respondents shall be guided by the judgment dated 29.05.2017 in the case of Rajendra Prasad Singh (supra) as also the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33. The fresh order, as directed above, shall be passed within a period of two months. The respondents shall also take into consideration the fact that the predecessor of the petitioner was being granted the benefit whereas the same has been denied to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad