JUDGMENT :

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.6.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 and its consequential order dated 7.7.2020 passed by the respondent no. 4.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to recover any amount from the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release her entire post retiral dues including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and general provident fund etc. with interest @ of 12 % within a period to be fixed by this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 12.08.1985 on the post of Mukhya Sewika in the office of District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Basti. It is alleged that pursuant to the Government Orders issued from time to time, petitioner has been given the benefit of promotional pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 12.08.1999, on completion of 14 years of satisfactory service by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner is said to have been promoted on the post of Child Development and Programme Officer pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the District Programme Officer, District Gorakhpur and was also given benefit of one increment of her salary under the provisions of Rule 22-B of UP Financial Hand Book II. It is alleged that petitioner has been superannuated on 31.12.2019 from the post of Child Development Programme Officer, Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner has been retired from her service on 31.12.2019 but the entire post retiral benefits of her including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and general provident fund etc has not been released to her as yet. It is alleged that on 23.6.2020, the Joint Director, Treasure and pension, Gorakhpur Division, District Gorakhpur (respondent no. 3) passed the impugned order whereby an objection has been raised while preparing the pension of the petitioner and further directed the respondent no. 4 to re-fix her salary and also to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from her gratuity. Pursuant to the said order, respondent no. 4 has passed the consequential order dated 7.7.2020 whereby the benefit of promotional pay scale/one increment which was given to her has been withdrawn and recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs. 3,06,113/-has been ordered to be made from her retiral dues.

4. The claim of the petitioner is that salary of the petitioner has been voluntarily fixed by the respondent authorities and the petitioner had no role in such fixation and, therefore, no recovery of excess amount of salary of the petitioner from her retiral dues is permissible. It is also contended that there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the of the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of recovery. He placed reliance on the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no ground to challenge the recovery which has been rightly directed to be made in view of excessive payment due to wrong fixation. It is further contended by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has given an undertaking with respect to the excess payment of the amount, if any, however, in the light of the said undertaking and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & haryana and Others Vs Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 such recovery has rightly been ordered.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired