HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6678 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.10.1984 and he retired as Sub-Inspector on 30.06.2025, however, post- retirement on 01.09.2025, the Assistant Police Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Agra proceeded to deduct an amount of Rs.5,70,849/- with respect to the alleged excess payment, which was not liable to be paid to the writ petitioner. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ A No.16824 of 2025 (Shiv Shankar Richhariya Vs. State of U.P.and others) (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:199819) which was decided by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 reads as follows:- 1. Heard Sri Chetan Prakash, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.10.1984 and he retired as Sub-Inspector on 30.06.2025, however, post-retirement on 01.09.2025, the Assistant Police Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Agra proceeded to deduct an amount of Rs.5,70,849/- with respect to the alleged excess payment, which was not liable to be paid to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the said order could not have been passed unilaterally without putting to notice the writ petitioner that too post-retirement in absence of any fraud, concealment or misrepresentation, he seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafique Masih (2015) SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others, (2022) 0 SC Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chetan Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Shankar Richhariya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 387. 3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, the writ petitioner would be heard while putting to notice and thereafter order shall be passed in this regard. 4. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms: (a) The writ petitioner shall prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.3 by 28.11.2025, who shall thereupon fix a date in second week of December 2025. (b) The writ petitioner shall ask for the document, which he seeks to be furnished, the same shall be furnished and after putting to notice the writ petitioner final orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. (c) The order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Agra shall be subject to final orders to be passed therein. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a decision has been taken by the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Agra Commissionrate on behalf of respondent No.3/Commissioner of Police, Agra vide order dated 23.02.2026, hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deduction of amount to the alleged excess payment is not permissible after retirement of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra). 5. It appears from perusal of the record that while deciding the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid judgements were duly taken note by this Court but while deciding the claim of the petitioner, the same has not been taken into consideration. 6. From perusal of the order impugned, the Court is more than satisfied that the order passed by the respondent No.4 on behalf of respondent No.3 is not only illegal but contemptuous in nature. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra). WRIA No. 6678 of 2026 2 The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment i.e., paragraph-18 reads as follows:- "(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. Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners in the matter, nor the learned standing counsel has raised any such issue not it has been indicated in the written instructions which are on record." 9. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) held that the state cannot recover the excess amount paid to employees. In this aspect of the matter the paragraph-21 of the judgment delivered by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2024) 8 SCR 377 also important to note down which reads as follows:- "21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employees pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others V. State of Bihar and others, this Court held that when the excess unauthorized payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. The relevant paras of the Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) are extracted herein below: - "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or WRIA No. 6678 of 2026 3 wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made. (emphasis supplied) ." 10. There has been recurring and troubling pattern that retired employees are compelled to approach the Court because their pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits are either withheld or unnecessarily delayed by Administrative Authority. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties and employee earns these benefits by dint of long continuous faithful and unblemished service as was held in the case of D.S. Nakar vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305. It is a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law as per Article 300 as was held in State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210. 11. Retired employees are compelled to engage in prolonged litigation merely to receive their lawful pension and gratuity, their dignity and their financial security is severely compromised. Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantee the right to life with dignity also extends to individuals in their old age. In the case of Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 636, it was held that there cannot be any doubt that the right to life with dignity is a part of right to life as postulated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a right would WRIA No. 6678 of 2026 4 be rendered meaningless if aged person does not have the financial means to take care of his basic necessity and has to depend for it on others. 12. It is unfortunate that time and again not only this Court but by the Hon'ble Apex Cort it has been held that the State Government cannot reduce the pay scale and recover the excess amount before/or/after retirement of the Government Servant, insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear from perusal of order impugned that on the ground that wrong fixation has been made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016 at the time of sixth pay commission and thereafter again same thing has been recorded by way of seventh pay commission, the recovery order has been passed by the respondent No.3. 13. It further reveals from perusal of the record that earlier in the writ petition filed by he petitioner when the judgment was delivered in the case of petitioner on November 15, 2025, in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment a reference has been made by this Court in respect of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) and Thomas Daniel (Supra) but in the entire order passed by the respondent no.4 on behalf of respondent No.3 the same has not been taken into consideration for the reasons best known to him. Large number of cases are coming before this Court with identical controversy and in some of the cases as and when personal affidavit has been sought for by the concerned Commissioner as well as Principal Secretary (Home) to explain the reasons, the necessary payments will be released. Insofar as the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, in large number of cases orders were passed by this Court regarding the deduction from the post retiral benefits of the Government Servants. 14. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are habitues not to obey the orders passed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court which is clear from perusal of the order impugned. WRIA No. 6678 of 2026 5 15. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the decision dated 23.02.2026 taken by the respondent No.4 is absolutely vague and the same has been passed against the law of land, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed. 16. The writ petition is allowed. 17. respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Agra Commissionrate & respondent No.3/Commissioner of Police, Agra is directed to provide all the benefits namely payment of pension to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by him at the time of his retirement w.e.f. May, 2026. The reduced pension which has been paid to the petitioner after his retirement till April 2026 be also released in his favour within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 5, 2026 saqlain WRIA No. 6678 of 2026 6 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad