Anil Kumar Shukla vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25400

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1382 of 2025

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faizan Siddiqui,Irfan Ahmad Malik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The present petition has been filed stating that the petitioner has retired from the post of Head Constable (Civil Police) on 31.03.2022.

¶8

It is stated that after the retirement, certain dues amounting Rs. 4,45,848/- have been deducted/ recovered from the post retiral benefit which according to the petitioner is contrary to law.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel argues that the recovery certificate has been issued on account of wrong fixation of salary.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 while dealing with such dispute, had framed following guidelines:-

¶11

" 12. 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, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 ."

¶17

Undisputedly, case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgement of Rafiq Masih (supra) and petitioner was not responsible for fixation of incorrect pay scale and consequently for excess payment.

¶18

Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to release the entire deducted amount of Rs.4,45,848/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

In case, the amount of Rs. 4,45,848/- is not released within the aforesaid period, same shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of its payment.

¶20

However, respondents are at liberty to file a recall application within a period of two months if this order is obtained by the petitioner by concealing material fact.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 RKM

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Shukla v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Shukla v. the State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Veer Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

National Highway Authority of India Thru. Project Director vs Rajendra

Dharmesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Minta Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Naresh Singh Pal vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others