HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 15116 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 order dated 11.11.2024 whereby salary benefits granted to petitioner earlier w.e.f. 01.07.2008 have been re-determined and revised on the pretext that incorrect pay fixation was earlier granted to petitioner resulting in excess payment and therefore loss to the exchequer. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned order, is squarely covered by 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. 4. Learned State Counsel has not been provided written instructions in this matter but submits that impugned orders has been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has been made to petitioner. 7. 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 order, 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Prem Prakash Chaturvedi (S.I. Pno-840630450) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 8. In view thereof, this Court finds the present dispute squarely covered by judgment in Rafiq Masih(supra), which is in the following terms: "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 WRIA No. 15116 of 2025 2 an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 9. Having regard to above, impugned order dated 11.11.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to 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 Rafiq Masih(supra). Such a decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioner's salary shall be made by the authority within same period in light of Rafiq Masih (supra). 10. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. December 19, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 15116 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench