Allahabad High Court
Asi (Ap) Suaib Ahmad Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:70784
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 9550 of 2024
Asi (Ap) Suaib Ahmad Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Shesh Ram Mishra, Lalit Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 11.09.2024 and 02.08.2022 whereby pay fixation of petitioner has been re-determined and recovery/adjustment has also been directed.
3. It has been submitted that the impugned order clearly indicates adjustment having been made from pensionary benefits of petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,85,323/- on the allegation that benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to petitioner on 07.02.2006 was incorrect.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner nor even considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 or the relevant Government Order whereby such recovery could not have been effected.
5. The aspect as to whether recovery can be effected on account of incorrect fixation of pay-scale has already been dealt with in judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra). Relevant portions of the judgment reads as under:-
"18. 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."
6. Upon applicability of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that petitioner is a Class III employee and deductions have been made from his post-retiral benefits. There is no assertion by opposite parties that alleged incorrect fixation of pay-scale was on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of petitioner. It is also evident that prior to making deduction, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been provided to petitioner.
7. In view thereof, impugned order dated 11.09.2024 and all other concomitant orders requiring recovery/adjustment to be made from retiral benefits of petitioner are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. It is also directed that the amount already recovered from petitioner shall be refunded to him within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon opposite parties concerned. 8. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
November 6, 2025
lakshman
