Ram Pratap Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on 01.12.1998 and he was granted selection grade after completion of 10 years of service in year 2009 and subsequently, after completion of another 10 years, in year 2021, he was also given the benefit of second promotional pay scale and in accordance with the same, he is getting the salary since 01.11.1999, uptil the orders impugned has been passed. He submitted that the petitioner has not been associated prior to passing the orders impugned dated 20.09.2025, 15.09.2025 and 12.06.2025. He also argued that the benefit which was accorded to the petitioner in year 2009, that is, about 16 years back, has been withdrawn without associating him in the proceedings. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the law rendered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar reported in AIR 2024 SC 3950 and has referred paragraph nos. 21 to 23 which are extracted as under:- ""21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee's pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others 1, this Court held that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. The relevant paras of the Syed Abdul Qadir(supra) are extracted hereinbelow: - "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.

59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any 3 WRIA No. 12034 of 2025 misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made." (emphasis supplied)

22. Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2, held as under: - "108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have recognised the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce hardship to the innocent employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation." (emphasis supplied)

23. In the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others 3, this Court held as under: - "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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employces who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (it) Recovery from the 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 duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. 4 WRIA No. 12034 of 2025 (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." (emphasis supplied)"" Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the law is settled by the Apex court that if long giving benefits are withdrawn, the opportunity of hearing must be given. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the whole proceeding by virtue of which the orders impugned are passed, vitiates in the eyes of law and those are also against the settled provision of law, thus, those may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has tried to substantiate his argument that the petitioner was admittedly appointed on adhoc basis in year 1999 and therefore, the selection grade granted in 2009 seems to be erroneous and when this fact came into the knowledge of present District Inspector of Schools, he tried to rectify the said defect, therefore, the order impugned has rightly been passed, but he has failed to substantiate that the opportunity of hearing, prior passing the impugned orders, have not been afforded to the petitioner. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed in year 1998 and he was given the benefit of selection grade in year 2009 and subsequently, he was given the benefit of promotional pay scale in 2021; meaning thereby, he was getting the benefit of the selection grade and promotional pay scale since last 16 years. It is an admitted fact that no opportunity is accorded as no show cause notice has ever been issued by the authorities prior passing the impugned orders. This Court is also aware of the law settled in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh(Supra). Consequently, the impugned orders dated 20.09.2025, 15.09.2025 and

12.06.2025 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools concerned to pass a fresh order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within further period of two months, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 5 WRIA No. 12034 of 2025 The petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings after receiving the show cause notice, from the District Inspector of Schools. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby allowed at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties. October 15, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on 01.12.1998 and he was granted selection grade after completion of 10 years of service in year 2009 and subsequently, after completion of another 10 years, in year 2021, he was also given the benefit of second promotional pay scale and in accordance with the same, he is getting the salary since 01.11.1999, uptil the orders impugned has been passed. He submitted that the petitioner has not been associated prior to passing the orders impugned dated 20.09.2025, 15.09.2025 and 12.06.2025. He also argued that the benefit which was accorded to the petitioner in year 2009, that is, about 16 years back, has been withdrawn without associating him in the proceedings. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the law rendered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar reported in AIR 2024 SC 3950 and has referred paragraph nos. 21 to 23 which are extracted as under:- ""21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee's pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others 1, this Court held that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. The relevant paras of the Syed Abdul Qadir(supra) are extracted hereinbelow: - "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.

59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any 3 WRIA No. 12034 of 2025 misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made." (emphasis supplied)

22. Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2, held as under: - "108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have recognised the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce hardship to the innocent employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation." (emphasis supplied)

23. In the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others 3, this Court held as under: - "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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employces who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (it) Recovery from the 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 duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. 4 WRIA No. 12034 of 2025 (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." (emphasis supplied)"" Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the law is settled by the Apex court that if long giving benefits are withdrawn, the opportunity of hearing must be given. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the whole proceeding by virtue of which the orders impugned are passed, vitiates in the eyes of law and those are also against the settled provision of law, thus, those may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has tried to substantiate his argument that the petitioner was admittedly appointed on adhoc basis in year 1999 and therefore, the selection grade granted in 2009 seems to be erroneous and when this fact came into the knowledge of present District Inspector of Schools, he tried to rectify the said defect, therefore, the order impugned has rightly been passed, but he has failed to substantiate that the opportunity of hearing, prior passing the impugned orders, have not been afforded to the petitioner. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed in year 1998 and he was given the benefit of selection grade in year 2009 and subsequently, he was given the benefit of promotional pay scale in 2021; meaning thereby, he was getting the benefit of the selection grade and promotional pay scale since last 16 years. It is an admitted fact that no opportunity is accorded as no show cause notice has ever been issued by the authorities prior passing the impugned orders. This Court is also aware of the law settled in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh(Supra). Consequently, the impugned orders dated 20.09.2025, 15.09.2025 and

12.06.2025 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools concerned to pass a fresh order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within further period of two months, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 5 WRIA No. 12034 of 2025 The petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings after receiving the show cause notice, from the District Inspector of Schools. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby allowed at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties. October 15, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench