HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9931 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 12.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 whereby re-fixation of pay scale of petitioner has been effected alongwith deduction/adjustment of the alleged excess amount paid. 3. It has been submitted that impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without indicating any reasons. It is submitted that since there is no allegation that incorrect fixation of pay-scale was either being played fraud at the behest of petitioner or any misrepresentation, such recovery could not have been effected. It is further submitted that petitioner being a Class IV employee is covered by judgement 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. 4. Learned State counsel has been provided written instruction dated 22.08.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which, petitioner has specifically given an undertaking at the time of grant of such benefits that excess payment could be deducted. 5. The aforesaid aspect has already been dealt with by Hon'ble the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Priyanshu Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sriprakash Ojha .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others (supra). 6. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner with regard to alleged incorrect fixation of pay-scale. It is also admitted that petitioner belongs to Class IV category. In such circumstances, the aforesaid judgment rendered in the State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others (supra) is squarely applicable. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, requiring recovery or deduction from salary, no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner nor is there any allegation that incorrect pay-fixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof is either at the behest of petitioner or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by him. 8. 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: (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. WRIA No. 9931 of 2025 2 (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." 9. Having regard to above, the impugned orders 12.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 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 his reply. Since petitioner pertain to Class III and Class IV category, as enunciated by State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra), any deduction or adjustment of salary made from petitioner or recovery made is 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. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 2, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 9931 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench