Ram Bakes Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25052

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4026 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Bakes Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶8

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the letter dated 03.10.2022 issued by the opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

¶9

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refund the recovery amount of Rs.2,38,575/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶10

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refix the pension ignoring the recovered amount and to pay the arrears.

¶11

iv. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the petitioner’s pay was incorrectly fixed on 01.07.2006. Due to this erroneous fixation, excess payment was made to the petitioner. Consequently, after the petitioner’s retirement, an amount of Rs. 2,38,575/- was deducted from the leave en-cashment payable to him. The remaining amount was duly paid.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

It is undisputed that the petitioner’s pay was wrongly fixed in 2006. It is also not contested by the Learned Standing Counsel that this erroneous fixation was not the result of any

¶15

misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner. Furthermore, from 2006 until his retirement on 31.07.2022, the petitioner did not provide any undertaking stating that any overpaid amount due to wrong fixation may be recovered from him.

¶16

Thus, in light of these facts, and considering that the petitioner retired from the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police—a Class-III post—the recovery made without affording an opportunity of hearing is impermissible as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶17

Accordingly, in view of admitted facts, so also the settled position of law in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and also in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 , wherein in para 9 and 10, the Supreme Court has clarified that the recovery can only be effected if the employee had given an undertaking at the time of receiving the monetary benefit and also considering the fact that no such undertaking was given by the petitioner, the excess amount paid due to the 2006 pay fixation cannot be recovered from the petitioner who has already retired from class-3 post.

¶18

Thus, the writ petition is allowed .

¶19

The impugned order dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure No.1) is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case of delay, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment.

¶20

Since the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the respondents are granted liberty to pass a fresh order after affording such opportunity. While passing the fresh order, only the re-fixation

¶21

of pension may be considered. No recovery shall be made from the petitioner in light of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶22

Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application along with certified copy of the judgment within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Bakes v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bakes v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Diwakar Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Hasin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Meera Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar and 5 Others

Pawan Kumar Varma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Sukhram Yadav @ Nanku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Deepu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others