HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10325 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 order dated 29.04.2023 whereby pay-scale made admissible to petitioner has been refixed after his superannuation and recovery has also been effected from retiral benefits of petitioner. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner and even otherwise it is not the case of opposite parties that alleged incorrect fixation of pay-scale was on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of petitioner. It is therefore submitted that petitioner's case is covered by decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 07.09.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and submits that impugned order has been passed due to incorrect fixation of pay- scale of petitioner and for which petitioner has already undertaken at the time of grant of such benefits that recovery may be effected from him in case petitioner's pay-fixation is found to be incorrect. 5. Aforesaid aspect as to whether recovery can be effected on account of incorrect fixation of pay-scale has already been dealt with in judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). Relevant portions of the judgment reads as under:- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Mishra, Pranav Mishra, Ratnesh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Hari Saran Dwivedi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) "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. Upon applicability of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that petitioner was a Class III employee and deductions have been made from his post-retiral benefits. There is no assertion by opposite parties that incorrect pay-fixation of pay-scale was on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of petitioner. It is also evident that prior to making deduction, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been provided to petitioner and appears to be based on a document allegedly signed by petitioner in year 2016 giving an undertaking for recovery to be effected from his emoluments. 7. In view thereof, impugned order dated 29.04.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of 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, particularly with regard to aforesaid undertaking. It is also directed that the amount already recovered from petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon opposite parties concerned. 8. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the WRIA No. 10325 of 2025 2 admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. September 9, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 10325 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench