Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13389 of 2025

Ajay Kumar Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Aditya Bhanu	Vikram Shahi, Aryak Wadhawan, Pratap Singh, Gyan Sagar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶11

Petition has been filed challenging orders of recovery of Rs.2,94,332/- by means of impugned orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.08.2025.

¶12

It is submitted that by means of impugned orders, pay fixation of petitioner has been re-determined and benefits already accorded in the year 2015 have been withdrawn with orders of recovery/adjustment from salary of the petitioner.

¶13

From material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner belongs to Class II category of employees and impugned orders have been passed withdrawing pay-scale which was made admissible to him long time ago. Ex facie , impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of audit report(s) without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned orders, is squarely covered by 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.

¶15

Learned State Counsel has not been provided written instructions

¶16

WRIA No. 13389 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

in this matter but submits that impugned orders has been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has been made to petitioner.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner nor is there any allegation that incorrect payfixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof were either at the behest of petitioner or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by him.

¶20

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:-

¶21

"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:

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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

¶26

WRIA No. 13389 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

work against an inferior post.

¶29

(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."

¶30

Having regard to above, impugned orders dated 06.03.2025 and 21.08.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature 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.

¶31

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶32

November 20, 2025 lakshman

¶33

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶34

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

Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Daras Vishwakarma @ Ramdarash Vishwakarma and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 6 Others

Chandrabhan Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Yogesh Srivastava and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Med. Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Chandrapal Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Anirudh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others