HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15452 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the in pursuance of the Advertisement published in the year 1998, the writ petitioner participated in the interview which was held on 08.12.1998 and was selected on the post of Staff Nurse. As per the writ petitioner, her services stand covered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate (Non-Gazetted) Rules, 1979 and the appointment of the writ petitioner as Class-III employee, on the post of Staff Nurse is admissible to the pay-scale of Rs.5000-150-8000. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that she has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors and she came to be transferred from one place to another. As per the writ petitioner, on the basis of certain inputs so sought to be received by the respondents, the respondents came to the conclusion, the payment so made to the writ petition are on the basis of the wrong pay-scale, pursuant whereto on 24.03.2025, the Chief Medical Superintendent, Rajkiya Kshaya Rog Chikitsalaya, Prayagraj issued a notice to the writ petitioner and the others alleging that there has been wrong fixation of the pay-scale, which the writ petitioner claims to have replied on 01.04.2025 (Annexure-8 at page-51 of the paper-book), reference whereof has been made in para-16 of the writ petition. Subsequently another notice came to be issued on 04.02.2025, which the writ petitioner claims to have replied on 11.04.2025, Annexure-11 at page-63 of the paper-book, reference whereof has been made in para-18, however, now the order impugned has been passed on 29.08.2025 by the third respondent, making a recovery of Rs.444633/-. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that entire basis for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh, Swapnil Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Radhika Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) passing of the order for effecting recovery is premised upon a chart prepared by the respondents. He submits that once on two occasion, the writ petitioner was required to tender his reply and the writ petitioner tendered his reply, then obviously, the contention so set forth in his reply ought to have been considered in the correct perspective. He further submits that even assuming that the said reply was not received by the respondent, or it was not submitted then too a finding to the said effect ought to have been recorded that despite opportunity being accorded to the writ petitioner, she has not submitted the reply. He thus submits that the order in question is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that it will always open for the employer to correct the error and however, there is a condition precedent that the said exercise is to be undertaken once notice is issued to the other party and opportunity is accorded to him to submit his reply and consideration is made in this regard, he submits that the the said exercise appears to be lacking, as the same is not forthcoming. He submits that the order in question be set aside, matter be remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 4. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that since nothing is forthcoming that the writ petitioner's reply which she claims to have submitted has been considered. Moreover, in case, no reply so submitted by the writ petitioner, then the said aspect ought to have been recited in the order in question. Since the said aspect goes to the root of the matter, the order cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The order dated 29.08.2025 stands set aside. (b) The matter stands remitted back to the third respondent to pass a fresh order. 6. For facilitation of the early disposal, the writ petitioner shall prefer a self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.3 by 31.10.2025. October 15, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15452 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad