HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11967 of 2025 Court No. - 7 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 29.04.2022 and 29.11.2024 whereby pay-scale of petitioners has been re-done with recovery being initiated against them on the allegation that they were paid excess salary due to wrong fixation of pay-scale and incorrect grant of service benefits. 3. In pursuance of directions issued earlier, learned State Counsel has been provided instructions dated 18.10.2025 appending a copy of impugned order dated 29.04.2022. Both are taken on record. 4. It is evident that impugned order dated 29.11.2024 has been passed as a consequence of order dated 29.04.2022 which merely indicates the aspect that petitioners' pay-scale granted earlier was incorrectly fixed and due to its correction recovery is required. It has also been indicated in the instructions that petitioners had submitted their consent on 23.07.2024 for such recovery to be effected. However, it is quite evident that alleged excess payment of salary pertains to year 2008 but the instructions do not indicate as to whether any consent was given by petitioners in the year 2008. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, subsequent consent allegedly given in year 2024 therefore would be of no consequence whatsoever. 6. The aspect as to whether recovery can be effected on account of incorrect Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rakesh Kuamr Uttam And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag - I Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Relevant portions of the judgment reads 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." 7. Upon applicability of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that petitioners are Class III employees and deductions are being made from their salary. There is no assertion by opposite parties that alleged incorrect fixation of pay-scale was WRIA No. 11967 of 2025 2 on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of petitioners. It is also evident that prior to making deduction, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been provided to petitioners. 8. In view thereof, impugned order dated 29.04.2022 and all other concomitant orders requiring recovery/adjustment to be made from their salary are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to pay- fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners and considering their reply. It is also directed that the amount already recovered from petitioners shall be refunded to them within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon opposite parties concerned. 9. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. October 27, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 11967 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench