Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, as it is considered iniquitous and violates the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Court No. - 6

1. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.10.1984 and he retired as Sub-Inspector on 30.06.2025, however, post-retirement on 01.09.2025, the Assistant Police Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Agra proceeded to deduct an amount of Rs.5,70,849/- with respect to the alleged excess payment, which was not liable to be paid to the writ petitioner. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ A No.16824 of 2025 (Shiv Shankar Richhariya Vs. State of U.P.and others) (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:199819) which was decided by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 reads as follows:-

1. Heard Sri Chetan Prakash, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.10.1984 and he retired as Sub-Inspector on 30.06.2025, however, post-retirement on 01.09.2025, the Assistant Police Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Agra proceeded to deduct an amount of Rs.5,70,849/- with respect to the alleged excess payment, which was not liable to be paid to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the said order could not have been passed unilaterally without putting to notice the writ petitioner that too post-retirement in absence of any fraud, concealment or misrepresentation, he seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafique Masih (2015) SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others , (2022) 0 SC 387.

3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, the writ petitioner would be heard while putting to notice and thereafter order shall be passed in this regard.

4. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms:

(a) The writ petitioner shall prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.3 by 28.11.2025, who shall thereupon fix a date in second week of December 2025.

(b) The writ petitioner shall ask for the document, which he seeks to be furnished, the same shall be furnished and after putting to notice the writ petitioner final orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.

(c) The order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Agra shall be subject to final orders to be passed therein.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a decision has been taken by the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Agra Commissionrate on behalf of respondent No.3/Commissioner of Police, Agra vide order dated 23.02.2026, hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deduction of amount to the alleged excess payment is not permissible after retirement of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra).

5. It appears from perusal of the record that while decidin