HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4817 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 27.10.2025 as corrected on 17.11.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 9777 of 2021, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "1. Heard Sri S.K. Singh Vashishtha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to prefer any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. 3. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided at this stage. 4. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as an ad hoc Auditor on 21.07.1976 and his service stood regularized on 01.07.1979. He was promoted as Senior Auditor on 28.05.1983 and post-completion of 16 years satisfactory service, he was accorded promotion grade and on 04.01.2009, Assured Career Progression (ACP) was given to the writ petitioner under the G.O. dated 04.11.2014. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was promoted as Assistant Audit Officer in Grade Pay Rs.4600/- and further promoted as District Audit Officer in Grade Pay Rs.4800/- and by virtue of the G.O. dated 19.10.2012, he was kept in Pay- Band 3 and Grade Pay Rs.5400/-. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that by virtue of the order dated 12.08.2015, juniors to the writ petitioner were recommended Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in place of Rs.5400/- with effect from 19.10.2012 and the writ petitioner preferred representation for according the said benefits and on 07.12.2015, the pay of the writ petitioner was re-fixed. However, with respect to a dispute between the ad hoc appointed/ regularized auditors and direct appointed auditors, the matter traveled to U.P. State Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.286/1997, Lok Nath and others vs. State of U.P., in which an order came to be passed on 02.06.2000 that directly appointed employees cannot be assigned seniority from a date, when they were not born in the cadre, against which a Writ Petition No. 1541 of 2000, Lok Nath vs. State Service Tribunal Lucknow came to be preferred, which was dismissed, however, on 20.10.2020, the petitioner's pay-scale was re-fixed from Rs.6600/- to Rs.5400/- and a recovery order came to be passed on 29/30.04.2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,04,397+52800+62930= Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Virendra Kumar Srivastav .....Applicant(s) Sandeep Kaur And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Rs. 2,20,129/-. 5. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned recovery could not have been made, particularly when the writ petitioner stood superannuated in the year 2016, he submits that there is no allegation of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. Further submission is that though it is open for the employer to correct the mistake, but the same should be done while putting the writ petitioner to notice and not unilaterally post-retirement after five years. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafeeq Masih, 2015 ACJ 272 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in 2022 AIR (SC 2153. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, it is always open for the employer to correct the mistake, however, he could not dispute the fact that the writ petitioner was not put to notice and further there is no allegation of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. 8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record. 9. Facts are not an issue. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted the pay-scale of Rs.6600/-. It is also not in dispute that that unilaterally, the pay-scale was re-fixed from Rs.6600/- to Rs.5400/-. It is further not in dispute that there is no allegation of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. Furthermore, parties are in agreement that the writ petitioner is holding a Class-III post and a recovery order has been passed on 09/21.11.2020 and 29/30.04.2021, post retirement of the writ petitioner after a period of five years. In view of the admitted facts that nothing is forthcoming that there had been allegation of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation and further the recovery has been sought to be made post retirement which cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 09/21.11.2020 and 29/30.04.2021 are quashed. 11. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund the amount which has already been recovered in pursuance of the said orders." 2. Today, instructions have been produced, as per the instructions, the total amount of Rs. 2,20,129/- has been refunded. 3. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the amount has been refunded. 4. In view of the above, the present contempt application has outlived its utility, accordingly, the same is consigned to record. 5. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. September 23, 2026 Rajesh CAPL No. 4817 of 2026 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad