Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Chandra Mate And 27 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185736
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14892 of 2025
Rakesh Chandra Mate And 27 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, Sonia Kulshreshtha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.
2. The case of the writ petitioners who are 28 in number is that they are initially appointed in Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Fatehgarh on daily wage basis on Class-IV post of Mate, Beldar, Chowkidar and cleaner on different date in between 1985 to 1991. According to the writ petitioners certain Class-IV employees working in the department of daily wages basis including the writ petitioner, has filed Writ Petition No. 4295 (S/S) 1996 (Yayan Kumar & 75 others v. State of U.P. & Others) in which an interim order came to be passed on 12.08.1996 directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the writ petitioner for payment of minimum of pay-scale in this regard other writ petitions were also filed and the writ petitioners were also paid the minimum of the pay-scale and in the meantime, the services of the writ petitioner stood regularised by the respondents in between 2005 to 2012. A report came to be issued on 22.02.2018 by the second respondent and recovery order was also issued which was subject matter of challenge in Writ A No. 8859 of 2018 (Devendra Singh and 34 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others) on 01.05.2018, in which the following orders were passed:
"The original records produced by the learned Standing Counsel have been perused. A perusal thereof indicates that the order of adjustment of arrears being recovered from the employees working on daily wage basis has been issued after making due enquiry into the matter. It appears that several daily wagers working in the department concerned have approached this Court seeking indulgence of the Court to provide them the minimum pay-scale as is being paid to a regular worker on the ground that they are entitled for the same pay-scale.
This Court applying the principles of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Puttilal reported in 2002 (20) LCD 1004 has held that the petitioners would be entitled to a minimum of the pay-scale being received by their counter-part in the department. However, it was clarified that they shall not be entitled to any other allowance or increment so long as they continue as daily wage worker. The question of their regular absorption would be governed by the statutory rules pertaining to the field. It appears that under the directions of this Court, the petitioners had succeeded in getting the increments and arrears of salary.
The said benefits were not admissible to the petitioners in view of the categorical directions of this Court as noted above. As a result of it, it was found that the legal opinion to grant daily wagers the benefit of increment and other allowances as also the arrears of salary, was against the provisions.
In view of the same, the recovery has been initiated against the petitioners and other similarly situated employees for realisation of annual increments and other benefits which they had received illegally. The petitioners are in service and the recovery is being made by making adjustment from the payments which are being made to them by the department. A direction has also been issued for correct fixation of the salary and to initiate criminal proceedings against those who are responsible for making wrong payments.
This order is under challenge on the ground that the petitioners have not been provided an opportunity of hearing before initiating recovery. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, to submit that the recovery cannot be made for excess payment to Class IV employee in absence of any allegations of forgery being done at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be held responsible for wrong payment made by the department.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, with reference to the fact brought in the original record submits that the petitioners have succeeded in getting payment/money on the basis of the wrong legal advice provided by the District Government Advocate. The payments given to them were not admissible even under the directions of this Court as this Court has observed that any allowance or increment over and above minimum of the pay-scale being given to the regular employee could not have been paid to the daily wager.
In the instant case, the petitioners have succeeded in not only getting the increment but also the arrears of salary for which there was no direction of this Court.
In so far as the reliance placed upon the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra), reference has been made to another judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 to submit that the view taken by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) has been considered and the conditions in which, the directions therein has to be applied has been reiterated and clarified by the Apex Court.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is more than apparent that the petitioners sought the payment of minimum pay-scale under the directions of this Court which were clear and specific inasmuch as, the petitioners were only entitled to minimum of the pay-scale as admissible to the regular employee working in the same capacity. They were not entitled for the annual increment or arrears of salary inasmuch as the benefits have not been provided by this Court.
In so far as the recovery/adjustment from Class IV employee, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of
the present case inasmuch as, the same refers to only those retired employees who are not in a position to repay the money that they had received during the course of service and further those who are about to retire. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court in Jagdev (supra) has held that excess payment made in favour of a employee can be recovered inasmuch as while paying the revised pay-scale, the employee had given an undertaking that in case of the said fixation being found wrong, the department would be entitled to make recovery.
Further, a perusal of the records indicates that at the time of receipt of benefits which is sought to be recovered, the petitioners had also given an undertaking that in case of any wrong payment, the department would be entitled to recover.
In so far as the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice is concerned, it is settled law that the requirement of natural justice cannot be confined in a straight jacket and varies from facts and circumstances of each case. Even otherwise, on an opportunity granted by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any explanation, which the petitioners could have offered, in case, they would have been provided opportunity of hearing. This Court is, therefore, of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by not issuing notice or providing an opportunity of hearing.
For the above noted reasons, this Court does not find any justification to interfere.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
3. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 603 of 2018 in which on 04.07.2018, the following orders were passed:
"Learned standing counsel wants some time to argue this appeal.
Time prayed for is allowed.
Let this appeal be listed on 10.8.2018.
In the meanwhile and until further orders no recovery shall be made from the appellant-petitioners against the amount said to be paid in excess than their entitlement. "
4. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petition is pending before this Court. However now a notice has been issued on 06.09.2025 by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Fatehgarh Division, Farukhkhabad with respect to recovery for the period from regularization till January, 2019.
5. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the said notice cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the authorities who had issued the notice have not considered the import and the impact of the pendency of the Special Appeal No. 603 of 2018, where there is an interim order already in operation. Further submission is that since this Court is seized of the matter, thus, proprietory demanded that the authorities would have abstained from proceedings, any further from issuing notice or making recovery. He further submits that though the same is termed to be a notice but even in fact it contains conclusion for making of the recovery in this regard. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that whatever payments have been made either on correct or incorrect basis in absence of fraud, cancellation and misrepresentation, the same cannot be recovered in that regard.
7. Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2025 of this Court has obtained instructions and according to him, here in the present case, the writ petitioners have given an undertaking then there is no question of resisting the recovery, however, it is a plane notice to which the writ petitioners may submit their reply and till reply is taking into consideration and final orders and no orders have been passed, no recovery shall be made.
8. To such a submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
9. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to submit reply to the said notice by 29.11.2025 and on the said motion, the respondents/ competent authority shall put to notice the writ petitioners and thereafter to proceed and consider the claim of writ petitioner and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.
10. It is clarified that any observations made in the notice are tentative and they are subject to adjudication by the authority, post receiving of reply and consideration of the same.
11. Till the final orders are passed, the impugned recovery notices dated 6.9.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 4, directing to recover certain amounts from the salary of petitioners on month to month basis (Rs. 10,000/- per month), shall not be enforced.
12. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.
13. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
October 16, 2025
A. Prajapati
