Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37349 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7210 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rampal Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Shukla,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Brief Holder for State. 2. The petitioner before this Court has worked as a Class III employee with respondent Junior High School, an aided school from 1989 till 31.05.2021 i.e. till the attaining age of superannuation and at that stage an audit objection was made that petitioner was wrongly granted pay-scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- as fixed after completion of his 14 years of regular service instead of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590/- and such error further perpetuated and by impugned order dated 31.03.2021, a direction was passed that Rs.3,39,165/- be recovered and pension be fixed accordingly. 3. At that stage, this writ petition was filed before this Court wherein by interim order impugned recovery was stayed with a direction to pay him provisional pension. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is getting provisional pension. He further submits that even there was an error in fixing salary, the same cannot be recovered after more than 18 years i.e. when he was about to retire and in support of his submission, he refers a judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015 (4) SCC 334. 5. Learned Brief Holder for State submits that petitioner has no legal argument, so far as that salary was wrongly fixed in the year 2003 and that error was perpetuated and he was paid salary which he was not entitled, therefore, the order of recovery was passed. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. It may be a case where the petitioner was wrongly paid or his salary was wrongly fixed in higher grade, however, pleadings does not indicate that it was a case, where the petitioner has committed any fraud. He has already been benefited from fixing of higher pay scale and on basis of it, further increment, ACP, etc was granted and finally he has retired in higher pay scale. 7. The Court also takes note that the audit error was pointed out after about 18 years when petitioner was about to retire. 8. In the facts and circumstances of present case, as referred above, the Court is of opinion that since petitioner has not committed any fraud and there is a delay in pointing out the error if any in fixing the pay-scale, the judgment Rafiq Masih (supra) came to rescue the petitioner, therefore, impugned order dated 31.03.2021, so far as recovery is concerned, is set aside. However, since there is no legal argument that salary was correctly fixed, therefore, the pension will accordingly be determined on basis of correct fraction of salary. 9. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad