##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 6826 of 2026

Furquan Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuj Mishra, Himanshu Mishra

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

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Today when the matter is taken up, it is informed by learned counsel

for the petitioner that controversy involved in the present case is squarely

covered by a judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of

Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.11200 of

2023) decided on 17.07.2023. The said fact has been admitted by the

learned Standing Counsel also.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

18.03.2025 recovering Rs.1,87,014/- from salary and the post retiral dues

of the petitioner on the ground of excess payment because of alleged

erroneous fixation of salary/ pay-scale. The petitioner retired as Urdu

Translator from U.P. Police and on the date of his retirement he was

posted in the Police Station Rehar, Bijnor. Apparently, the petitioner

retired as a Group C employee.

3. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear that the order of

recovery has been passed by the respondents just prior to the retirement of

the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is a Class III employee.

4. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the

WRIA No. 6826 of 2026

2

judgement and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer): 2015 4

SCC 334. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 12 as

follows:-

"12. 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 herein above, we may,

as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein

recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV

service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to

retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from 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.

(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."

5. The same view was also taken by this Court in the case of Ravindra

Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.5498 of 2024)

decided on 10.04.2024

6. In this view of the matter and specially in view of the law laid down by

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) which

is reiterated by this Court in the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (supra), the

order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police recovering

WRIA No. 6826 of 2026

3

Rs.1,87,014/- from salary and post retirement benefit of petitioner is

hereby quashed. The amount recovered from the petitioner shall be

refunded to him along with his post retiral dues within one month from

the date a certified copy is filed before him.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

May 6, 2026

saqlain

Digitally signed by :-

SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad