HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6832 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Today when the matter is taken up, it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.11200 of 2023) decided on 17.07.2023. The said fact has been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel also. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 recovering Rs.4,46,619/- from the post retiral dues of the petitioner on the ground of excess payment because of alleged erroneous fixation of salary/ pay-scale. The petitioner retired as Urdu Translator from U.P. Police and on the date of his retirement he was posted at Police Station Najibabad, Bijnor. Apparently, the petitioner retired as a Group C employee. 3. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear that the order of recovery has been passed by the respondents after retirement of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is a Class III employee. 4. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuj Mishra, Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mo Ifrahim .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) judgement and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer): 2015 4 SCC 334. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 12 as follows:- "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." 5. The same view was also taken by this Court in the case of Ravindra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.5498 of 2024) decided on 10.04.2024. 6. In this view of the matter and specially in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) which is reiterated by this Court in the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (supra), the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police recovering WRIA No. 6832 of 2026 2 Rs.4,46,619/- from post retirement benefit of petitioner is hereby quashed. The amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him along with his post retiral dues within one month from the date a certified copy is filed before him. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. May 6, 2026 saqlain WRIA No. 6832 of 2026 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad