Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40955 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7729 of 2024 Petitioner :- Krishan Kant Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Misra,Vaibhav Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Shakti Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Shakti Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 30.08.2024, a copy of which annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby Finance and Accounts Officer of District Basic Education Office, Sitapur has informed the petitioner that he should approach the authority with all requisite documents and an amount of Rs 12,44,605/- allegedly paid in excess to him so that his pension and other retiral dues can be processed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that retiral dues with the exception of pension have been paid to the petitioner. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the stand of respondent no. 4 is that the petitioner had taken away all his documents including his service book as emerges from perusal of receipt given by petitioner dated 07.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure CA-12 to the Counter Affidavit dated 03.03.2025, and as such respondent no. 4 does not have any documents so as to forward them to competent authority for payment of pension to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the aforesaid documents have already been handed over to Finance and Accounts Officer by the petitioner vide letter dated 12.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to rejoinder affidavit dated 15.05.2025 to counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the aforesaid application would indicate that copy of the service book in original, anudan copy and no objection certificate of pension booklet in original had all been submitted to the competent authority. 7. However Shri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel argues that the said papers are to be countersigned by the management. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is found misconceived as for the said purpose, it was open for the competent authority to have sent the aforesaid papers of the petitioner to respondent no. 4 to be countersigned but there cannot be any occasion for the competent authority to sit over the papers that have been submitted by the petitioner and at the same time not process the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension. 9. Let the papers of the petitioner in possession of the competent authority be sent for being countersigned by the management within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In turn the respondent no. 4 shall countersign the papers as per law and send back the same to the competent authority within next four weeks. 10. Shri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further argued that an audit objection was raised pertaining to certain excess amount having been paid to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 and the petitioner having been given an additional increment with promotional pay scale with effect from 20.11.2019 and consequently an amount of Rs 12,44,605/- is required to be paid by the petitioner more particularly when the petitioner had given an undertaking, a copy of which is part of annexure CA-10 (page 43) of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents no. 2 and 3. 11. However as per the averments made in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 it emerges that the said undertaking had been given by the petitioner indicating that with the implementation of recommendations of seventh pay commission, in case any wrong pay fixation comes into notice, the same may be recovered. Thus the undertaking may not relate back to fixation of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 in as much as admittedly the seventh pay commission has come into force with effect from 01.01.2016. As such, the respondents would be within their right of recovering the excess amount in case the same has been paid with effect from 01.01.2016 considering the fact that the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334 would not have any applicability pertaining to recovering of excess amount in case an undertaking has been given by the employee in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & others vs Jagdev Singh, 2016 (14) SCC 267 wherein the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been distinguished. However, no excess amount will be recoverable for the period from 01.01.2006 and 31.12.2015. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. After the papers are examined by the competent authority, in case payment is due to the petitioner the same would also be paid expeditiously, say within three months. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench