Ram Gulam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 31st January 2022, whereby, due to refixation of petitioner's pay scale, recovery has been directed to be made from petitioner's pensionary benefits. Further prayer for refund of deducted amount has also been made.

¶12

It has been submitted that impugned order will make it evident that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner while refixing the pay scale excluding benefits which were earlier made admissible to petitioner. It is submitted that it is not the case of opposite parties that the alleged incorrect fixation was due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of petitioner.

¶13

Learned State Counsel has not been provided written instructions in this matter but submits that impugned order has been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has been made to petitioner.

¶14

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly enunciated that recovery cannot be effected from salary of Class III and Class IV employees particularly when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the employee.

¶15

WRIA No. 5238 of 2022

¶16

2

¶17

In view thereof, this Court finds the present dispute squarely covered by judgment in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra), which is in the following terms:-

¶18

"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:

¶19

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶20

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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." 7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 31st January 2022 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to authority concerned to pass orders afresh regarding pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. Aforesaid exercise shall keep in mind directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra). Such a decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks. Refund of recovery, if any, made from petitioner's salary shall be made by the authority within same period in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) .

¶24

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed.

¶25

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶26

December 1, 2025

¶27

prabhat

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Gulam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gulam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shesh Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Enviroment Forest Climate Change Section 3 Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sharad Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare and 6 Others

Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harshit Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Shri Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others