Shailendra Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 8.8.2025 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions the leading being Writ A No.11575 of 2024 (Madan Ji Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others).

3. On the basis of the arguments and the averments made in the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner appears to be true.

4. Learned Standing counsel has agreed that the facts and law involved in this case are covered by the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted as under:- "1. Heard M/s M.P. Raju, Pankaj Pandey, Manish Mishra, Alok Kumar Shukla, Manvendra Singh, Ajit Singh, Apporv Pal, Farooq Ayoob, Deepak Singh & Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners appearing in different writ petitions above and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. The above bunch of petitions has been filed challenging various orders whereby pay-scales made admissible to petitioners were revised on ground that they were inadmissible to them. Orders pertaining to recovery/adjustment of such excess payments has also been passed and is under challenge.

3. Affidavit filed on behalf of State in WRIT - A No. - 11575 of 2024 is taken on record. 4. A perusal of order-sheet indicates that this Court had earlier shown concern with regard to aspect that in a number of cases, recovery orders have been issued on allegation that incorrect or excess payments were made to employees. 2 WRIA No. 7770 of 2025

5. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court earlier in this bunch of petitions, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has adverted to affidavit filed on behalf of State and it has been submitted that with regard to aforesaid aspect, it has been decided that a portal to display the normalized pay (matters of pay fixation) under the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Finance Commission would be developed and tender-bid with regard to same has already been issued. It has been submitted that seven points or parameters which were laid down by this Court in its judgment and order dated

26.09.2022 rendered in WRIT - A No. - 5238 of 2022 [Ram Ghulam v. State of U.P and others] has been made available by the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters vide letter dated 05.08.2025 and effective steps are being taken to ensure implementation of all the seven parameters indicated by this Court. It is therefore submitted that development of portal with implementation of aforesaid seven parameters would obviate the problem which is being faced with regard to excess payment being made.

6. From aforesaid material on record, it is evident that petitioners belong to Class III and Class IV category of employees and impugned orders have been passed withdrawing pay-scales which were made admissible to them long time ago. Ex-facie, impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of audit report(s) without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned orders, is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, requiring recovery or deduction from salary, no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioners nor is there any allegation that incorrect pay-fixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof were either at the behest of petitioners or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by them.

9. 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:- "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: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who 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. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge 3 WRIA No. 7770 of 2025 duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (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."

10. Having regard to above, the impugned orders in all the above writ petitions are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners and considering their reply. Since petitioners pertain to Class III and Class IV category, as enunciated by State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), any deduction or adjustment of salary made from petitioners or recovery made are required to be refunded to them within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned. The decision shall be taken by authority concerned in light of Government Order dated 16.01.2007.

11. Resultantly, the petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. "

5. Accordingly, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid order and the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment. November 14, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 8.8.2025 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions the leading being Writ A No.11575 of 2024 (Madan Ji Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others).

3. On the basis of the arguments and the averments made in the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner appears to be true.

4. Learned Standing counsel has agreed that the facts and law involved in this case are covered by the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted as under:- "1. Heard M/s M.P. Raju, Pankaj Pandey, Manish Mishra, Alok Kumar Shukla, Manvendra Singh, Ajit Singh, Apporv Pal, Farooq Ayoob, Deepak Singh & Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners appearing in different writ petitions above and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. The above bunch of petitions has been filed challenging various orders whereby pay-scales made admissible to petitioners were revised on ground that they were inadmissible to them. Orders pertaining to recovery/adjustment of such excess payments has also been passed and is under challenge.

3. Affidavit filed on behalf of State in WRIT - A No. - 11575 of 2024 is taken on record. 4. A perusal of order-sheet indicates that this Court had earlier shown concern with regard to aspect that in a number of cases, recovery orders have been issued on allegation that incorrect or excess payments were made to employees. 2 WRIA No. 7770 of 2025

5. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court earlier in this bunch of petitions, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has adverted to affidavit filed on behalf of State and it has been submitted that with regard to aforesaid aspect, it has been decided that a portal to display the normalized pay (matters of pay fixation) under the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Finance Commission would be developed and tender-bid with regard to same has already been issued. It has been submitted that seven points or parameters which were laid down by this Court in its judgment and order dated

26.09.2022 rendered in WRIT - A No. - 5238 of 2022 [Ram Ghulam v. State of U.P and others] has been made available by the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters vide letter dated 05.08.2025 and effective steps are being taken to ensure implementation of all the seven parameters indicated by this Court. It is therefore submitted that development of portal with implementation of aforesaid seven parameters would obviate the problem which is being faced with regard to excess payment being made.

6. From aforesaid material on record, it is evident that petitioners belong to Class III and Class IV category of employees and impugned orders have been passed withdrawing pay-scales which were made admissible to them long time ago. Ex-facie, impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of audit report(s) without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned orders, is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, requiring recovery or deduction from salary, no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioners nor is there any allegation that incorrect pay-fixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof were either at the behest of petitioners or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by them.

9. 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:- "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: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who 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. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge 3 WRIA No. 7770 of 2025 duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (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."

10. Having regard to above, the impugned orders in all the above writ petitions are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners and considering their reply. Since petitioners pertain to Class III and Class IV category, as enunciated by State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), any deduction or adjustment of salary made from petitioners or recovery made are required to be refunded to them within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned. The decision shall be taken by authority concerned in light of Government Order dated 16.01.2007.

11. Resultantly, the petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. "

5. Accordingly, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid order and the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment. November 14, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench