HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10157 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 18.08.2025 whereby recovery has been directed from service emoluments of petitioner on account of incorrect fixation of pay scale. 3. It has been submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that petitioner's alleged fixation of incorrect pay scale has been indicated without issuing any notice to petitioner or providing any opportunity of hearing to him. It is submitted that aforesaid grant of service benefits was done in the year 2008, the recovery of which is being sought to be made in the year 2025 and therefore is against the law enunciated by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih and Others (2015) 4SCC 334. 4. Upon consideration submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is quite evident that recovery has been sought from service emoluments of petitioner without issuance of any show cause notice for affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The aspect of whether recovery can be effected from petitioner in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is also to be considered. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Saroj Kumar Mishra (S.I.- Pno-8523737592) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. 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." 6. In view of aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 18.08.2025 and 01.08.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. The authority concerned is also required to apply its mind as to whether such recovery can be effected in the light of judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 7. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage WRIA No. 10157 of 2025 2 itself. Parties to bear their own cost. September 3, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 10157 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench