Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49388 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9383 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pratap Narain Kanaujia Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "1- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the orders dated 4-4-2025 and 2-8-2025 passed by the opposite party no.3, with the approval of the opposite party no.2, the photo copy of which are annexed as Annexure No.-1 and 2 to the writ petition. 2- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the orders dated 28-11-2023, 13-12-2023 and 4-3-2025 passed by the opposite party no.1 and 2, respectively, the photo copy of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.-13, 14 and 15 to the writ petition. 3- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, specially the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, not to make recovery of Rs. 3,66,859/- from the petitioner, in pursuance of the orders dated 4-4-2025 and 2-8-2025. 4- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, specially the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to pay retiral dues to the petitioner as per the pay fixation order dated 22-6- 2018, passed in pursuance of the order dated 15-3-2018...." 3. It has been submitted that benefits already granted to petitioner earlier by means of III ACP vide order dated 15.03.2018 passed w.e.f. 14.10.2013 has been withdrawan without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner or issuing any notice to him. 4. It is submitted that since petitioner is a Class-III employee, his case is covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 4 SCC 334, 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." 5. 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 him. 6. Having regard to above, impugned orders dated 04.4.2025, 02.8.2025, 28.11.2023, 13.12.2023 and 04.3.2025 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 him reply. Since petitioner pertain to Class III category, as enunciated by State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), any deduction or adjustment of salary made from petitioner or recovery made are required to be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned. The decision shall be taken by authority concerned in light of Government Order dated 16.01.2007. 7. Resultantly, the petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench