HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 2649 of 2024 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 6.4.2023 and 9.5.2023 whereby pay scale granted to petitioners sine 2010 has been revised and recovery has been directed from the salary of petitioners. 3. It has been submitted that impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioners and after 14 years such benefits having been granted. It is submitted that it is not the case of opposite parties that the alleged incorrect fixation of emolument was due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that their case is squarely covered by the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as the Government order. 4. 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 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. 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:- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Islam Khan, Farooq Ayoob Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Munir Ahmad And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) "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. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned orders dated 6.4.2023 and 9.5.2023 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to authority concerned to pass orders afresh regarding pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners 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) as well as Government order dated 16.1.2007. Such a decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioners salary shall be made by the authority within same period in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as relevant Government orders. 8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. (Manish Mathur,J.) September 22, 2025 AKK WRIA No. 2649 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench