Ram Avadh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I Lko. and 2 Others

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12.1.2018 whereby petitioner's pensionery benefits have been interfered with after superannuation due to re-fixation of pay scale.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that by means of impugned order, service benefits granted to petitioner earlier more than ten years ago have been subsequently withdrawn with recovery/adjustment also having been made from retiral benefits of petitioner due to aforesaid fixation.

¶11

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.

¶12

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:-

¶13

"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

¶14

WRIA No. 9484 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

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:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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."

¶22

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 12.1.2018 is 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 eight weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioner's retiral benefits shall be made by the authority within six weeks in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) .

¶23

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed .

¶24

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶25

September 15, 2025 AKK

¶26

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

Ram Avadh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avadh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I 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

Manoj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Vibhag Lucknow and 4 Others

Bhagwan Deen Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Yagya Narayan Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Anjul Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ghanshyam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others