Muslim Husain (Retd. Com. Commander ) Pno No. 801060047 vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

In the present writ petition, recovery of certain amount has been made from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner which according to the State is on account of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, by mistake, resulting in excess payment to the petitioner.

¶11

According to the petitioner, such recovery cannot be made as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334', paragraph-18 of which provides:-

¶12

"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, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who

¶15

WRIA No. 5092 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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."

¶20

Since, the controversy involved is short and legal in nature hence the petition itself is being finally decided as no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. After the retirement of the petitioner from the post of Sub Inspector, Civil Police (Class-III), the pay-scale of the petitioner has been redetermined by the impugned order dated 10.01.2023. In consequence thereof, the recovery of Rs. 72,216/- was made from the post retiral dues of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 10.1.2023, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also not the case that there was any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioner in wrong fixation/redetermination of his salary. So keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision/law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), particularly by condition no. (i) & (ii) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted in the earlier paragraph, which the learned State Counsel has been unable to distinguish.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶23

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the impugned orders dated 10.1.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶24

Respondent no. 4 i.e. Assistant Commandant, 32 Battalion PAC Lucknow is directed to ensure the payment of Rs. 72,216/- which has

¶25

WRIA No. 5092 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

been withheld or recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶28

May 1, 2026 Madhu J.R/P.S

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Muslim Husain (Retd. Com. Commander ) Pno No. 801060047 v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muslim Husain (Retd. Com. Commander ) Pno No. 801060047 v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 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

Shiv Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Sayma Praveen and 5 Others vs UOI Thru. Its Secy. Minsitry of Women and Child Welfare New Delhi and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Food and Civil Supplies) Lko. and 4 Others

Vishwanath Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mahipal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 3 Others

Yuvraj Singh (Minor) Thru. His Father Dwarika Prasad vs U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Education New Delhi and 3 Others