##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 6760 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Dubey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kailash Prakash Pandey

Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. The order dated 21.09.2025 passed by the Additional Deputy

Commissioner of Police (Protocol) Agra/respondent No.3 by which the

salary of the petitioner has been revised and order of recovery has been

passed is under challenge.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the aforesaid

order, salary of the petitioner has been revised from 01.03.2005. It is

argued that the petitioner has been retired from the post of Sub Inspector

Civil Police on 31.03.2026. It is argued that the before passing the

aforesaid order, no notice or opportunity of hearing has been provided to

the petitioner. It is argued that recovery could not be sought from the

petitioner for excess payment made during service period after lapse 20

years back. It is argued that nothing has been stated in the order impugned

that any fraud or misrepresentation has been made by the petitioner at any

point of time or at the time of re-fixation of the pay scale.

3. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by learned Standing

Counsel.

4. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs.

State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010) reported in 2022

Supreme(SC) 387 decided on 02.05.2022 held that the state cannot

recover the excess amount paid to employees. In this aspect of the matter

the paragraph-21 of the judgment delivered by the The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and others

WRIA No. 6760 of 2026

2

reported in (2024) 8 SCR 377 also important to note down which reads as

follows:-

"21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State

Government to reduce an employees 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, this Court held that when

the excess unauthorized 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 herein below: -

"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

WRIA No. 6760 of 2026

3

appellant teachers was not because of any 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 r