HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9880 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging orders dated 02.07.2021 and 31.08.2021 whereby pay fixation accorded to petitioner has been revised and an amount has also been deducted. Prayer has also been made for refund of the deducted amount alongwith interest. 3. It has been submitted that by means of impugned orders, benefits accorded to petitioner with regard to fixation of pay-scale in the year 2006 have been withdrawn without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is also submitted that it is not the case of opposite parties that such pay fixation was at any time recorded due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is currently employed as a Class IV employee and by means of impugned order, recovery has been effected without affording him any opportunity of hearing, for benefits which petitioner has been drawing for the past twenty years. 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 State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Priyanshu Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned State Counsel has not been provided written instructions in this matter but submits that impugned order has been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has been made to petitioner. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 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. 7. 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. (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." 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned orders 02.07.2021 and 31.08.2021 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 State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra). Such a decision shall be taken within a period WRIA No. 9880 of 2025 2 of eight 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) . 9. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. September 1, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 9880 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 Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench