Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4232 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12238 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. To The Deptt. Of Agriculture And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Tripathi,Akarsh Asthana,Nida Navi,Shishir Srivastava,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on temporary/ad-hoc basis on the post of Junior Assistant on 22.01.1987 in the Directorate of Agriculture and subsequently his services were regularised by order passed in 1993 with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and then to the post of Head Assistant and subsequently has superannuated on 31.07.2024. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during his entire service period he was granted all the increments and other service benefit including ACP regularly. It is stated that just prior to his superannuation, on 06.02.2023, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why recovery be not made from his salary with regard to excess amount of wages paid to him during his service including wrong fixation of Grade Pay and benefit of ACP was also wrongly given to him amongst other grounds. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 01.03.2023 objecting to the show cause notice and stated that there was no infirmity in the service benefits which were granted to the petitioner during the course of his service. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without any other proceedings the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 has been passed seeking to re-fix the salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2009 and the entire outstanding amount of Rs.1,67,995/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery could have been made from the salary of the petitioner in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 and submits that the petitioner is duly covered under the Ist and IInd clause of the said judgment inasmuch as he was holding Class III post. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary on two grounds, firstly, being in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) and secondly, perusal of impugned order would indicate that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner while replying to the show cause notice have been considered or dealt with. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Perusal of impugned order would indicate that it only reiterates the stand of the State whereby excess payment has been alleged to have been made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary/grade pay and other service benefits. There is no consideration or discussion about the grounds raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice and accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order dated 21.03.2024 as well as consequential order dated 27.05.2024, deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 10. In the light of above, present writ petition is allowed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass reasoned and speaking order in this regard. 11. Result of the fresh order to be passed by the respondents would be re- fixation of salary of the petitioner for the purposes of grant of pension. Immediately after passing of the said order, the respondents shall proceed to prepare fresh Pension Payment Order and proceed to grant pension to the petitioner which is so found to be admissible. 12. It is made clear that even in case it is found that the petitioner was wrongly granted certain financial benefits during her service, the respondents are restrained from making any recovery from him in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra). Order Date :- 22.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench