Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8351 of 2022 Petitioner :- Jai Shanker Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Srivastava,C.S.C.,Dharmendra Dhar Dubey Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Shri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State. By means of the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 excess salary paid to the petitioner has been recovered from him. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2019. The order of recovery was passed on 04.03.2020 after the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was a Class III employee in the respondent corporation. According to the respondents, the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed which led to payment of excess amount. Admittedly, there was no fraud or misrepresentation on part of the petitioner which led to the incorrect fixation of salary. The wrong fixation of salary was made on account of an error on part of the respondents. The impugned order was passed in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih reported at 2015 (4) SCC 334. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The entire amounts recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order shall be reimbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it is clarified that all the other benefits shall be paid to the petitioner on the basis of the correct salary of the petitioner which was determined after rectifying the error in the earlier salary fixation. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad