Disposed¶12

Ram Naresh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2026WRIA/2950/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Naresh Verma versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others; WRIT - A No. - 2950 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Court No. 33; Vikas Budhwar, J.; order dated March 11, 2026; adjournment; time to obtain instructions sought by Addl. Chief Standing Counsel Pramod Kumar Srivastava; C.S.C. for respondents; Ranjan Dhwaj Tiwari for petitioner; case to be listed 30.03.2026 as fresh.

What did the court decide?

Adjournment: time granted to Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, to obtain instructions; case listed on 30.03.2026 as fresh before Court No. 33. ¶12

Ram Naresh Verma vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2950 of 2026

Ram Naresh Verma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ranjan Dhwaj Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

A sum of Rs.2,94,716/- has been recovered from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner after his retirement vide order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely The Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

¶12

It is argued that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, instructions dated 16.03.2026 under the signature of the Respondent No.2 is placed before this Court, the same is taken on record. Relevant paragraph of aforesaid instructions reads as follows:-

¶13

"िनदेशक आयुवेर्द सेवाएं उ० प्र० लखनऊ के पिर पत्रांक -810 / 18ए-664 /2024 / अिध०, िदनांक-05.11.24 के क्रम में इस कायार्लय के आदेश सं० 2672/ 2024-25, िदनांक - 30.01.25 (छायाप्रित संलग्न) के द्वारा श्री रामनरेश वमार्, से०िन० फामेर् को किनष्ठ एवं विरष्ठ कमर्चारी का लाभ प्रदान करते हुये वेतन िदनांक 01.07.2011 को बराबर कर वेतन िनधा र ्ण संशोिधत िकया गया।"

¶14

From perusal of the aforesaid it transpires that the order passed in this regard dated 13.03.2023 is also appended along-with the instructions.

¶15

From perusal of the aforesaid it transpires that recovery in question has been made against the petitioner pursuant to some wrong fixation made by the department in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011.

¶16

Nothing has been stated in the instructions that at any point of time any fraud or misrepresentation has been done by the petitioner at the time of re-fixation of his salary in the year 2000. The aforesaid re-fixation could not be done in view of subpara-2 of Para-18 of the order passed in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc, reported in (2015) SCC (4) 334. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment i.e., paragraph-18 reads as follows:-

¶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

WRIA No. 2950 of 2026

¶20

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners in the matter, nor the learned standing counsel has raised any such issue not it has been indicated in the written instructions which are on record."

¶25

After the aforesaid judgment was delivered, various judgments were delivered by the different Coordinate Benches of this Court, inspite of the same, the recovery is sought against the petitioner after his retirement due to the fact that wrong fixation has been made in the year 2011. From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the order of recovery is not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature.

¶26

In this view of the matter, Respondent No.2 is directed to appear before this Court explaining the reasons that why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her/him for passing order in complete violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) .

¶27

Put up this matter as fresh on 07.04.2026.

¶28

The matter will be taken up at 10:00 a.m. sharp.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel will inform regarding this order to the Respondent No.2 namely The Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow during the course of the day.

¶30

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶31

March 30, 2026 Swati

¶32

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Suhail Farshori vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Indrasani Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhinay vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

Kapil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nishant Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others