HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 5718 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Akhil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties. 3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers:- "(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, the Commandant-39 th Battalion, P.A.C. Mirzapur, District Mirzapur to refund the deducted/ recovered amount of Rs.2,94,000/-. within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court. (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, the Commandant-39th Battalion, P.A.C. Mirzapur, District Mirzapur to decide the representation dated 25.01.2025 of the petitioner (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner while working on the post of sweeper superannuated from his services on 31.10.2022. Till the time of retirement no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After his retirement a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- was deducted by the Respondent No.2 from his post retiral benefits due to access payment made to him. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it is stated that petitioner pay scale was wrongly fixed to Rs.9910/- in place of Rs.8940/- from 23.07.2006 and, therefore as per the direction given by the Finance Controller, the necessary correction has been made by the Commandant, 39th Battalion, PAC, Mirzapur on 01.09.2022 and the pay scale of the petitioner has been corrected from 23.07.2006. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Madan Mohan Lal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Paras Nath Rawat Sweeper .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. It is further stated that on the basis of the aforesaid correction it has been found that the amount of Rs.2,94,168/- was paid in excess to the petitioner, therefore, the said excess payment has already been made to the petitioner has been adjusted from the petitioner's retiral dues and in this regard an undertaking given by the petitioner, copy of which is appended as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. 7. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid undertaking was taken by the respondents after his retirement while payment of post retiral dues due to excess payment made to him. He next submitted that excess payment was made due to incorrect fixation of pay scale, for which petitioner is not responsible and he has neither played any fraud nor concealed any fact, therefore, such recovery is in teeth of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) while dealing with such dispute, had framed following guidelines:- "12. 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, summarize 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." WRIA No. 5718 of 2025 2 9. Undisputedly, case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgement of Rafiq Masih (supra) and petitioner was not responsible for fixation of incorrect pay scale and consequently for excess payment. 10. In this view of the matter, orders passed dated 01.09.2022 by the Commandant 39th Battalion, PAC, Mirzapur, copy of which is appended as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 12. The respondent concerned is directed to release the entire deducted amount i.e., Rs.2,94,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. In case, the amount of Rs.2,94,000/- is not released within the aforesaid period, same shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of its payment. (Prakash Padia,J.) April 2, 2026 Swati WRIA No. 5718 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad