HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13797 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 02.09.2025 and 18.11.2025 whereby pay-scale granted to petitioner on 01.01.2006 has been sought to be redetermined with recovery also being effected on the allegation of excess salary being made to petitioner. 3. It is submitted that impugned orders have been passed on an ex parte basis without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and even otherwise petitioner being a Class-III employees, his case is covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble 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 28.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which petitioner is still in service and no recovery or adjustment has been effected against petitioner till date. 5. The 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 State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others(supra). Relevant portions Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Tapa Nath Chaturvedi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag -I Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) of the judgment read as under:-:- "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 consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner nor is there any allegation that incorrect pay- fixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof were either at the behest of petitioner or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by him. 7. Having regard to above, orders dated 02.09.2025 and 18.11.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard WRIA No. 13797 of 2025 2 to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. 8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage. Parties to bear their own costs. December 1, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13797 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench