Gaya Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 6th March 2024, 24th March 2025, and 5th May 2025, whereby pay fixation of petitioner has been redetermined with orders pertaining to recovery also being issued.

¶10

It has been submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after petitioner superannuated from service on 31st March 2025. It is also submitted that evidently no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was granted to petitioner and pay fixation granted to petitioner in the year 2008 has been revisited after almost 18 years.

¶11

Learned counsel has pleaded reliance on the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih.

¶12

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.

¶13

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:-

¶14

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern

¶15

WRIA No. 7277 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

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:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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."

¶23

It is also evident that the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP versus Madan Singh Verma, Civil Appeal No. 5253 of 2024 decided vide judgment order dated 23rd April 2024 has pleaded reliance on Government Order dated 16th January 2007 and has said that although the state is entitled to correct any mistake in determination of pay of employee during the course of service tenure, it cannot be done after his superannuation and that too not after more than three years having passed.

¶24

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned orders dated 6th March 2024, 24th March 2025, and 5th May 2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a 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 six weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioner's salary shall be made with 6 % per annum by the authority within same period in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) .

¶25

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed.

¶26

October 10, 2025 prabhat

¶27

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶28

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

Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. 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

Preeti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. and 6 Others

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. (Pwd) Lko. and 4 Others

Nikhil Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prisons, U.P., Lko and 2 Others

Sahab Bux vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Nagendra Prasad Pal vs Bank of Baroda Head Office Bank of Baroda Corporate Centre Thru. MD and CEO and 3 Others

Gaya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others