HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14283 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:- "I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the audit No. 33 of audit report of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bijnor for the audit year 2023-24 (Annexure No.5) insofar as it computes recovery of 2,95,365/ from the petitioner. II.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of respondents in deducting Rs. 5000/ per month from the monthly pension of the petitioner w.e.f. April 2026 (as reflected in Annexure No. 6), III.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondents to refund to the petitioner the entire amount already deducted from the pension (@ Rs. 5000 per month from April onwards), together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of each deduction till the date of actual refund." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, without there being any valid order passed by the competent authority, the respondents are illegally deducting a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from the pension admissible to the petitioner. It is further submitted that, to the best of the petitioner's knowledge, no such order has been passed directing deduction of Rs.5,000/- per month from his pension. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 01.07.2023 while serving as a Class-IV employee. It is lastly submitted that recovery made by the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Yasir, Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jagdish Pathak Tasleem Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) And Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. Sri Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 has contended that the grievance of the present petitioner, regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000/- per month from his pension, can be more appropriately redressed by the Executive Officer (respondent no.5) and that he has no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the fresh representation, to be moved by the present petitioner, within such stipulated period, as may be directed by this Court. He, however, further submits that in light of the undertaking furnished, petitioner is liable to return the excess salary received by him, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others vs. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016 (14) SCC 267. 5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Executive Officer (respondent no.5) to ventilate his grievances, as raised in this petition, within a period of two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of the same, if there is no other legal impediment. 6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. September 9, 2026 VR WRIA No. 14283 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad