Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7551 of 2023 Petitioner :- Govind Prasad Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 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 08.11.2022 and 03.02.2023 whereby deduction has been made from gratuity of petitioner allegedly on the basis that he has been granted excess payment of salary to which he was not entitled. Further prayer seeking a direction to opposite parties to provide salary which petitioner was getting earlier by refixing the same. 3. This Court had earlier shown concern with regard to aspect that in a number of cases, recovery orders have been issued on allegation that incorrect or excess payments were made to employees. 4. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court earlier in WRIT - A No. - 11575 of 2024, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has adverted to affidavit on behalf of State filed in the said petition and it has been submitted that with regard to aforesaid aspect, it has been decided that a portal to display the normalized pay (matters of pay fixation) under the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Finance Commission would be developed and tender-bid with regard to same has already been issued. It has been submitted that seven points or parameters which were laid down by this Court in its judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 rendered in WRIT - A No. - 5238 of 2022 [Ram Ghulam v. State of U.P and others] has been made available by the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters vide letter dated 05.08.2025 and effective steps are being taken to ensure implementation of all the seven parameters indicated by this Court. It is therefore submitted that development of portal with implementation of aforesaid seven parameters would obviate the problem which is being faced with regard to excess payment being made. 5. From material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner belongs to Class IV category of employees and impugned orders have been passed withdrawing pay-scale which was made admissible to him long time ago. Ex-facie, impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of audit report(s) without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned orders, is squarely covered by 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. 7. 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. 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. (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, impugned orders dated 08.11.2022 and 03.02.2023 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 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 are 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. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench