HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9607 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Written instructions dated 21.08.2025 placed before this Court by learned State Counsel is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for respondents. 3. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 05.02.2025 and recovery order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the respondent nos.4 & 7, respectively. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed seeking recovery from salary of petitioner, allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had been granted excessive salary due to incorrect fixation of pay-scale. 5. 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar, Smt. Ranjana Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Jai Prakash Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 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." 6. 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. 7. Having regard to above, impugned orders dated 05.02.2025 and 21.07.2025 are hereby quashed by issuing of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to respondents to pass orders afresh with regard to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering him reply. Since, petitioner pertains 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 WRIA No. 9607 of 2025 2 by authority concerned in light of Government Order dated 16.01.2007. 8. Resultantly, the petition succeed and is allowed. 9. Parties to bear their own costs. (Manish Mathur,J.) August 26, 2025 V. Sinha WRIA No. 9607 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench