Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73521 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6806 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Dinesh Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent :- Shashi Kant Verma Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Akash Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s pay was wrongly fixed and she was paid excess salary and petitioner has enjoyed its benefit for a period of fourteen years. 3. However, when petitioner retired on 31.03.2022, an objection was made about wrong fixation of salary. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has communicated Block Education Officer by a letter dated 30.05.2022, copy of which is annexed along with counter affidavit and scanned copy is pasted hereinafter, whereby she has made declaration if pay fixation was wrong, it would be corrected and in case there is recovery, same may be recovered :- 5. Petitioner has not disclosed aforesaid letter when this writ petition was filed on 09.04.2023. Aforesaid letter was placed on record by way of counter affidavit filed on 12.09.2023 i.e. 1 year and 6 months ago and till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Prayer to file rejoinder affidavit at this stage is rejected. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2014 0 Supreme (SC) 909, High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016 0 Supreme (SC) 589 wherein it was held that recovery at belated stage is barred and he has further placed reliance upon recent judgment of Supreme Court in Jogeswar Sahoo and others vs. District Judge, Cuttack and others, 2025 INSC 449. 7. Learned Additional C.S.C. submits that whenever there is a pay fixation, an undertaking is given by employee that in case later on, it is found that excess amount was paid, it could be recovered/adjusted though no such document is placed on record by either party. 8. I have considered above submissions and perused the record. 9. As referred above, petitioner is not a bonafide litigant and is concealing relevant facts and documents that she has given undertaking as referred above. Still considering that said undertaking may be given in compulsion as well as admittedly, the petitioner was never given an opportunity to place her case, therefore, in the light of judgments referred above, though Court takes note that immediately after retirement, order of recovery/adjustment could be passed, therefore, an opportunity is granted to petitioner to submit her objection against recovery/adjustment specifying that whether she was aware about wrong fixation or not as well as being a teacher, why not she may come forward to return/adjust excess amount, of which she was not entitled. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Sinha_N. 2 Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad