Girendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1192 of 2026

Girendra Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

. .	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Savita Jain, Raj Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Prafulla Tiwari

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶11

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 24.6.2025 whereby after their retirement certain recovery is being made by respondents without providing any opportunity of hearing. The amount which is sought to be recovered from the petitioners were given to petitioner as certain advances and there is also claim of recovery with regard to dearness advance and festival advance as well as Protsahan advance and additional amount.

¶12

It is apparent from the impugned order that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners while passing the order. Learned counsel for petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washerman) reported in (2015) 4 SCC page.334 , paragraph-18 of which provides:-

¶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 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

WRIA No. 1192 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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."

¶21

Since, impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence, the same is liable to be quashed and writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶22

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 24.6.2025 is set aside with liberty to respondent no. 2 to 4 to pass fresh order with regard to re-fixing retiral dues payable to the petitioner, after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it.

¶23

The recovery, however, shall not be made from the petitioner keeping in view of the Supreme Court judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) case before passing a fresh order after due opportunity.

¶24

It is further directed that whatever retiral dues are found payable, if any, shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it.

¶25

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed .

¶26

February 4, 2026 Ram Murti

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

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

Girendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 3 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

Sanjay Kumar (S.I.PNO-960580550) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt., Lko. and 4 Others

Sub Inspector, PNO-932080053, Anwar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. and 2 Others

Sonu Saroj @ Sonu Kumar Saroj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naveen Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others