HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11059 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging orders dated 03.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 whereby recovery from salary of petitioner has been directed to be effected on ground that excess payment of salary was made to petitioner since January, 2006 till January, 2024. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner taking away benefits which have been made admissible to petitioner since the year 2006. It is further submitted that petitioner being a Class III 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 refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that impugned order has been passed in view of the fact that his case is erroneously determined in the year 2006 which required to be corrected so as not to encumber the State exchequer. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ramesh Chandra Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag - I Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 6. 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." 7. Having regard to above, the impugned orders dated 03.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 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 WRIA No. 11059 of 2025 2 Government Order dated 16.01.2007. 8. Resultantly, the petition succeed and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 18, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 11059 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) 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