Disposed

Arun Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025WRIA/11397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged pay revision orders directing recovery of excess pay paid due to wrong pay fixation. Court held recovery impermissible per Rafiq Masih, stayed recovery, and called for counter affidavit on the pay revision question.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of excess amount stayed till next date; counter affidavit directed within four weeks.

Arun Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 11397 of 2025

Arun Shukla

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

ep. asc u. o.	ers	...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Alok Kumar Shukla	Pandey,	Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 30

¶8

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶9

1.Heard Sri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging therein, the orders dated 08.04.2025 and 21.02.2025, whereby pay fixation of the petitioner had been revised.

¶11

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to pay revision made under the orders impugned in this writ petition, recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation had been directed. It has further been contended that the recovery amount is Rs.28,426/-

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Panjab & Or s vs Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , had categorically held that if Group-C and D employees have been paid certain amount due to wrong fixation of pay, the said excess amount cannot be recovered.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel appearing the State-respondents could not dispute the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶14

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsels

¶15

WRIA No. 11397 of 2025

¶16

¶17

appearing for the parties and I find that so far as pay revision of the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned orders dated 08.04.2025 and 21.02.2025, is concerned that can only be decided after calling a counter affidavit from the State-respondents but the recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner, in lieu of wrong fixation of pay, cannot be made in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶18

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents, within a period of four weeks. Two weeks thereafter shall be available to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶19

List after six weeks.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner, in terms of the impugned orders dated 08.04.2025 and 21.02.2025, shall remain stayed.

¶21

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶22

September 25, 2025

¶23

Shahnaz

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Aditya Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Med.Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Dr.Asad Khalid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and 5 Others

Pavan Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 8 Others

Complainant X of Case Crime No. 238/2019 P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Sultanpur vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home and Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 4 Others

Aniket Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others