Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6861 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13953 of 2024 Petitioner :- Hub Lal Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents. 2. Case was heard on 14.11.2024 and Court has passed following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. Pursuant to the orders dated 23.09.2024 & 07.11.2024, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh has filed personal affidavits of respondent nos. 2 & 3, which is taken on record. 3. Based upon personal affidavits, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi submitted that Smt. Laxmi Srivastava, junior to petitioner was paid higher pay scale and thereafter, petitioner has also filed application seeking same pay scale given to Smt. Laxmi Srivastava. Considering the same, petitioner was also given the same pay scale earlier given to Smt. Laxmi Srivastava. Later on, it was found that pay scale of Smt. Laxmi Srivastava has wrongly been calculated, therefore, action was taken reducing the pay scale of Smt. Laxmi Srivastava and thereafter recovery of amount earlier paid has also been made. 4. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi next submitted that higher pay scale given to the petitioner is only on the ground that his junior was given same pay scale and after reducing the pay scale of Smt. Laxmi Srivastava, petitioner is also not entitled for the same, therefore, his pay scale has been reduced and excess payment made to him has been recovered. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is not disputed that petitioner is not responsible for fixation of higher pay scale as he has not committed any fraud or concealed any facts and after considering his application, he was given higher pay scale, therefore, after retirement no recovery can be made. He lastly submitted that present matter is squarely covered with the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 1909, in which it is held that from Grade 'C' employees and retired employees, no recovery can be ordered, where they are themselves not instrumental in the wrong fixation. 6. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General could not dispute the legal submissions made by counsel for petitioner. 7. Under such facts, respondent no. 2 is directed to pay recovered amount i.e. Rs. 5,33,063/- to the petitioner within two weeks from today. 8. So far as re-fixation of pay scale is concerned, the same shall be adjudicated on the next date fixed. 9. Put up this case as fresh on 02.12.2024 amongst top ten cases. " 3. Now, in compliance of order dated 14.11.2024, Rs. 5,33,063/- has been paid to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as pay scale of petitioner was reduced without providing opportunity of hearing, therefore, he may be permitted to move representation before respondent No. 2 for redressal of his grievance. Lastly, it is submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation within a stipulated time. 5. Learned standing counsel submitted that in case any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the earliest. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the same in accordance with law maximum within a period of six weeks thereafter. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It is upon respondent No. 2 to pass order after considering the relevant Rules as well as facts of the case. 8. However, earlier impugned order dated 07.02.2024 shall abide by fresh order passed by respondent no. 2. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Sartaj Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad