HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9714 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 23.01.2024 and 08.02.2024 so far as it relates to re-fixation of pay scale of petitioner withdrawing benefits, which were made admissible to petitioner in the year 2005. 3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was provided nor is in the case of opposite parties that any incorrect pay fixation of benefit was granted to him on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on this part. 4. Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma, learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 30.08.2025, which are taken on record and as per which refund of the deducted amount has already been issued and shall be credited in petitioner's account shortly. It is also submitted that earlier a show cause notice had been issued to petitioner in response to which, petitioner had submitted the deduction may be made as per rules whereafter the present order has been passed. 5. However, an examination of documents on record or even the instructions do not reveal any indication as to how the benefits provided Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar, Pramod Kumar Khare, Ramraj, Vivek Kumar Rawat Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Surendra Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) earlier to petitioner since the year 2005 have been incorrectly granted except to indicate that they incorrectly granted. Once a show cause notice had been issued to petitioner, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have recorded reasons for indicating that benefits granted to him were incorrect. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is currently employed as a Class III employee and by means of impugned order, recovery has been effected without affording him any opportunity of hearing, for benefits which petitioner has been drawn. It is submitted that impugned order does not indicate any complicity or misrepresentation on part of petitioner in the alleged excess payment of salary. He has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from a perusal of impugned orders dated dated 23.01.2024 and 08.02.2024 that re-fixation of pay of petitioner since the year 2005 has been effected along with directions for recovery but it is also evident that prior to passing of impugned order, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) has clearly enunciated that recovery cannot be effected from salary of Class III and Class IV employees particularly when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the employee. 9. In view thereof, this Court finds the present dispute squarely covered by judgment in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), 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: WRIA No. 9714 of 2025 2 (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." 10. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned orders dated dated 23.01.2024 and 08.02.2024 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to authority concerned to pass orders afresh regarding pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. Aforesaid exercise shall keep in mind directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra). Such a decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioner's salary shall be made by the authority within same period in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) . 11. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. September 1, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 9714 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench