Shakuntala Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. And

"5. It had been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant employee that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is incorrect for the reason that the High Court did not consider the G.O. dated

16.1.2007 bearing No. S-3-35/10-07-101(6)/2005 which reads as under: [1]. Pension Fixation Authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10 months prior to retirement and for that examine the records of only two years prior thereto i.e. only the records of 34 months would be examined for the purpose of grant of pension, as has been provided in the aforesaid Government Order dated 13.12.1977. [2]. Pension Allowing Authority shall not be entitled to correct the mistake in determining the pay during service tenure beyond the period prescribed in para (1) 3 WRIA No. 12765 of 2025 above. Mistakes in pay determination of an employee can be effectively removed through the process of general inquiry/audit only when the employee is still in service."

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment placing reliance on Government Order dated 16.01.2007 has clearly held that in case of mistake committed in pay-fixation during a period of 34 months prior to superannuation is not to be interfered with. Even the submission that interfering in the revision of pay-scale would amount to an employee getting more amount than what he was entitled to was also not accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Relevant portions of judgment are as follows :- "7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, it is not in dispute that the Appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs. 11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs. 9000/-. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the Appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the Appellant could have been reduced. " "11. The submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that the Appellant would be getting more amount than what he was entitled to cannot be accepted in view of the policy laid down by the Government in G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the Government feels that mistakes are committed very often, it would be open to the Government to change its policy but as far as the G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 is in force, the Respondent-employer could not have passed any order for recovery of the excess salary paid to the Appellant or for reducing pension of the Appellant. "

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is amply clear that pay-fixation of an employee such as petitioner prior to 34 months from the date of superannuation is not to be interfered with even if incorrectly fixed as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) in view of Government Order dated 16.01.2007.

11. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is evident that petitioner's husband superannuated on 31st May, 2005 and has subsequently passed away on 10th May, 2022 whereafter the impugned order has been passed on the ground of incorrect fixation of pay. The aforesaid fact clearly indicates that recovery is now sought to be effected after more than 20 years from family pension. As 4 WRIA No. 12765 of 2025 has already been held in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) as well as government order dated 16th January, 2007, such recovery can not be effected after such a long time.

12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 8th October, 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Recovery made from family pension of petitioner is required to be refunded to her within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned.

13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. November 3, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"5. It had been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant employee that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is incorrect for the reason that the High Court did not consider the G.O. dated

16.1.2007 bearing No. S-3-35/10-07-101(6)/2005 which reads as under: [1]. Pension Fixation Authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10 months prior to retirement and for that examine the records of only two years prior thereto i.e. only the records of 34 months would be examined for the purpose of grant of pension, as has been provided in the aforesaid Government Order dated 13.12.1977. [2]. Pension Allowing Authority shall not be entitled to correct the mistake in determining the pay during service tenure beyond the period prescribed in para (1) 3 WRIA No. 12765 of 2025 above. Mistakes in pay determination of an employee can be effectively removed through the process of general inquiry/audit only when the employee is still in service."

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment placing reliance on Government Order dated 16.01.2007 has clearly held that in case of mistake committed in pay-fixation during a period of 34 months prior to superannuation is not to be interfered with. Even the submission that interfering in the revision of pay-scale would amount to an employee getting more amount than what he was entitled to was also not accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Relevant portions of judgment are as follows :- "7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, it is not in dispute that the Appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs. 11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs. 9000/-. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the Appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the Appellant could have been reduced. " "11. The submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that the Appellant would be getting more amount than what he was entitled to cannot be accepted in view of the policy laid down by the Government in G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the Government feels that mistakes are committed very often, it would be open to the Government to change its policy but as far as the G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 is in force, the Respondent-employer could not have passed any order for recovery of the excess salary paid to the Appellant or for reducing pension of the Appellant. "

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is amply clear that pay-fixation of an employee such as petitioner prior to 34 months from the date of superannuation is not to be interfered with even if incorrectly fixed as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) in view of Government Order dated 16.01.2007.

11. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is evident that petitioner's husband superannuated on 31st May, 2005 and has subsequently passed away on 10th May, 2022 whereafter the impugned order has been passed on the ground of incorrect fixation of pay. The aforesaid fact clearly indicates that recovery is now sought to be effected after more than 20 years from family pension. As 4 WRIA No. 12765 of 2025 has already been held in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) as well as government order dated 16th January, 2007, such recovery can not be effected after such a long time.

12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 8th October, 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Recovery made from family pension of petitioner is required to be refunded to her within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned.

13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. November 3, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench