HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9710 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 order dated 22.01.2025 whereby recovery/adjustment from petitioner's gratuity to the tune of Rs.5,75,200/- has been made on the allegation that petitioner has been provided incorrect pay fixation vide order dated 29.11.2024. 3. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed on an ex parte basis without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and even otherwise petitioner being a Class-III employees, 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lal Krishna Dixit .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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." 4. 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. 5. Having regard to above, impugned order dated 22.01.2025 is 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 her 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 her 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. WRIA No. 9710 of 2025 2 6. Resultantly, the petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. August 28, 2025 V. Sinha WRIA No. 9710 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench