Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135086 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11497 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Suman Respondent :- The State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Bundela Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, who retired as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), is aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2025 whereby he has been directed to deposit back the amount that was paid in excess towards the salary on account of wrong fixation of pay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before the Court that he has not been responsible at any point of time for any wrongful pay fixation, nor at any point of time he misrepresented the matter before the competent authority. It is also argued that petitioner never gave any undertaking before the authority at the time of pay fixation so as to fasten him with obligation to pay back the excess amount and thus, according to him, his case does not stand covered under the exception carved out in a case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh, 2016 (14) SCC 267 by the Supreme Court while elaborating the principles contained in the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, nor his reply dated 20.05.2025 of the show cause notice dated 02.05.2025 was considered, prior to passing of the order of re fixation inasmuch a direction for payment of excess amount was camouflaged in a notice issued to him. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has retired, no recovery could have been ordered for any excess amount in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) in which vide paragraph 12 the Supreme Court has held thus: "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, summarise 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." 6. Upon the principles of law of the above judgment if the notice impugned herein this petition is tested, I find that petitioner has been directed to deposit back the excess amount and there is no whisper in the notice that at any point of time petitioner was ever afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of pay- fixation. 7. In view of the above, therefore, I find that the case of the petitioner stands covered by the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and does not fall in the exception category carve out in the case of Jagdev Singh's case and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8. It is well settled principle of law that ignorance of law is no excuse and once the Supreme Court has laid down the law that every officer and authority working under the Government is bound by the said law WRIA No. 11497 of 2025 2 and in the cases covered to the judgment of Supreme Court and of this Court and any directions issued by this Court the authorities are not supposed to violate the same and if they do so, they deserve to face disciplinary proceedings and such recovered amount deserves to be refunded to such employee along with interest. 9. In view of the above, this matter is remanded back to the competent authority with direction to the petitioner to treat the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 as notice to which he shall be submitting reply within four weeks from today and soon after the reply is received, competent respondent authority shall pass reasoned and speaking order within a further period of two months only after giving opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties.The order impugned is hereby quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Date :- 11.8.2025 Deepika WRIA No. 11497 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad