HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13437 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.08.2025 of recovery amounting to Rs.1,79,770.00/- from pensionary benefits of petitioner. 3. It is submitted that service benefits provided to petitioner since 2015 have been revised on the ground that they were determined incorrectly and orders for recovery/adjustment have been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing being provided to petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is currently employed as a Class III employee and by means of impugned order, recovery has been effected without affording him any opportunity of hearing, for benefits which petitioner has been drawing for the past ten Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Vikram Shahi, Abhishek Kumar Shukla, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Gyan Sagar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Bhupendra Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) years. It is submitted that impugned order does not indicate any complicity or misrepresentation on part of petitioner in the alleged excess payment of salary. He has relied upon 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. 5. Learned State Counsel has not been provided written instructions in this matter but submits that impugned order has been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has been made to petitioner. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from a perusal of impugned orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.08.2025 that re-fixation of pay of petitioner with effect from July, 2015 has been effected along with directions for recovery but it is also evident that prior to passing of impugned order, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra) has clearly enunciated that recovery cannot be effected from salary of Class III and Class IV employees particularly when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the employee. 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.08.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to authority concerned to pass orders afresh WRIA No. 13437 of 2025 2 regarding pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. Aforesaid exercise shall keep in mind directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra). Such a decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioner's salary shall be made by the authority within same period in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) . 9. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. November 19, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 13437 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench