HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12006 of 2024 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 19.03.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the respondents have given the detailed breakup of the amount which was payable to the petitioner after his retirement and the amount which has been withheld i.e. Rs.6,68,395/-. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020. However, his entire retiral dues were not paid and consequently he was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ-A No.4259 of 2022 in re: Kamala Jeevan vs. State of U.P. and others. This Court vide judgment and order dated 22.07.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, disposed of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation. The respondent no.2 was directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, the respondents have decided the representation and after giving the detailed breakup of the amount as was due to the petitioner and also indicating that an amount of Rs.6,68,395/- had been paid in excess to the petitioner, have withheld the aforesaid amount. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satya Prakash, Abhishek Vishwakarma, Raj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajeeva Kumar Sinha Kamala Jeevan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner retired on 31.07.2020 and as per the order impugned dated 19.03.2024 the respondents have indicated that the amount as withheld by them is in pursuance to an office order dated 16.08.2023 and the said order having been passed subsequent to retirement of the petitioner consequently keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. - (2015) 4 SCC 334, the respondents are precluded from making any recovery from the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Sri Rajeeva Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, states that certain excess payments had been made to the petitioner to which he was not entitled more particularly the third ACP. At the time of fixation the petitioner had given an undertaking on 23.11.2015, a copy of which is Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit, authorizing the respondents to recover the excess amount in case of any error in fixation consequently keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh-2016 (14) SCC 267 and considering the undertaking which had been given, the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response thereto states that as the petitioner was admittedly entitled for grant of third ACP consequently in case the respondents have decided that he would not be entitled for third ACP the same would not resile from the fact that the recovery is being made subsequent to his retirement and thus the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would clearly be attracted. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2020. While the petitioner was in service the benefits of ACP had been given to him. Vide undertaking dated 23.11.2015 the petitioner had specifically undertaken that in case there is any error in his pay fixation or in case any excess amount is paid to him then the respondents would be at liberty of recovering the said amount from WRIA No. 12006 of 2024 2 the amount as payable to him in future. 8. Considering the aforesaid undertaking as had been given by the petitioner and the fact that as per the respondents the petitioner was not entitled to third ACP by which a particular grade pay had been given consequently the respondents have indicated that an amount of Rs.6,68,395/- had been paid to the petitioner in excess which is to be recovered. 9. Whether a recovery after retirement of an employee is permissible has already been set at rest by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 10. However, the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been distinguished by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable where the employee concerned has given an undertaking to the respondents for recovering any excess amount which has been paid to him. 11. In the instant case, it is apparent that the respondents have proceeded to recover the excess amount on the basis of the undertaking that had been given by the petitioner in the year 2015 i.e. at the time of his pay fixation. 12. Once the petitioner had in fact given the said undertaking accordingly keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) the principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner the respondents would be at liberty and within their rights of recovering any excess amount which has been payable to the petitioner. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. September 10, 2025 A. Katiyar WRIA No. 12006 of 2024 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench