Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60136 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12237 of 2014 Petitioner :- Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot,Jitendra Singh Lodhi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue pension and not deduct the amount Rs.78,496 from post retiral dues. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as assistant teacher in the year 1973. After completion five years of services in the department he was given C.T. Grade in the year 1978. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted in L.T. Grade in the year 1987 and he was accordingly paid salary. While the petitioner was working as assistant teacher in Shri Gandhi Inter College, Gohand, Hamirpur, he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. 4. Pursuant to the letter dated 01.01.2013 issued from office of Vitta Avam Lekhadhikari (Ma.) Office- Up Shiksha Nideshak, Jhansi, service books of the employees of the district, who were to be retired on 30.06.2013, were inspected / supervised. Upon supervision of the service book of the petitioner, it transpired that the petitioner was promoted in L.T. Grade since 01.08.1987 while he should have been promoted from 01.08.1988, which apparently reflects the mistake of the official, for which the petitioner may not be fastened with any liability. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary statement was prepared by the Assistant Account Officer, Madhyamik Shiksha, Hamirpur which was countersigned by District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur wherein it was directed that excess salary paid to the petitioner be recovered from him. The petitioner moved an application in the office of the Up Shiksha Nideshak, Jhansi, for issuance of his pension on 30.09.2013. Thereafter the petitioner was served an order dated 07.12.2013 passed by Up Shiksha Nideshak, Jhansi wherein it was disclosed that Rs.78,496/- has been deducted from his pension. 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner neither misled the authorities nor he committed any fraud with regard to the date of promotion which was made by the respondent on the basis of records available with them for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33. 7. Admittedly, facts are not in dispute but learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33, as the respondent did not consider any factual aspect, it is only negligence on the part of the respondent herein while promoting him since 01.08.1987 instead of 01.08.1988 and fixing salary hence, is not entitled for any recovery. 8. Considering the submissions and the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), since the petitioner did not conceal any material while he was granted promotion, it was apparent negligible act of the respondents while promoting the petitioner since 01.08.1987 instead of 01.08.1988, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 07.12.2013 Up Shiksha Nideshak, Jhansi directing deduction of Rs.78,496/- is set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad