IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of excess salary from retired employees is impermissible without prior notice or undertaking, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed the following main reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction of or in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated 06.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction of or in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated 07.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or direction of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner in pursuance of impugned orders 06.09.2024 & 07.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition.

IV. To 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 within the period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has retired from the post of Senior Assistant from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Barabanki on 31.07.2024. The aforesaid post comes within the purview of Class--III post. After his retirement, the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure No. 1) has been passed re-fixing the salary and Pay-Grade of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2006. On account of re-fixation of salary of the sum of Rs.5,68,082/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner vide order dated 07.09.2024 (as contained in Annexure No.2).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid inaction on the ground that in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih and Others (2005) 4 SSC 334, no such recovery may be executed from a Class III employee at the fag end of retirement or after retirement in the name of access amount being paid when the employee was in service.

5. Sri Ravi Singh has also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the dictum in re; High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Other Vs. Jagdev Singh (2014) 16 SCC 267 and in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih and Others (supra) to the extent that if at the time of making access payment, any undertaking has been received from the employee, such recovery may be executed but in the present case no such undertaking has been received from the petitioner when the benefit of pay-grade etc. was provided to the petitioner.

6. He has also submitted that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

7. Sri Ravi Singh has further submitted that in view of the policy of the State Government itself pursuant to the Government Order dated 16.01.2007, the employer may examine the last 34 months period of an employee after his retirement for re-fixation of salary etc but in the present case, such re-fixation has been carried out w.e.f. 01.07.2006.

8. The aforesaid Government Order dated 16.01.2007 has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Others (2014) 16 SCC 444.

9. Therefore, the impugned orders are patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and uncalled for in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re; State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih and Others (supra) and Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Others (supra).

10. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore tried to defend the impugned orders butt has submitted that undisputedly the petitioner retired from Class III post an impugned exercise of re-fixation of salary and pay-grad etc. as well as the direction for recovery has been passed after his retirement, therefore, appropriate order may be passed.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, since the pe