Allahabad High Court
MOHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The recovery order is void as it was passed without notice or hearing, violating the principles of natural justice articulated in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired government employee, challenged a recovery order of Rs. 1,55,375 issued by the District Basic Education Officer and a subsequent letter from the school manager, alleging that the order was passed nine years after his retirement without any notice or hearing and without any fraud on his part. The court examined whether the petitioner had given any undertaking at the time of salary fixation, whether there was any misrepresentation or fraud, and whether he was afforded a prior notice before the recovery proceedings. It also considered the applicability of the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Jagdish cases to a compulsory retirement scenario. Finding no evidence of any undertaking, fraud, or notice, the court held that the recovery order violated established principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside both the recovery order and the school manager’s letter and remanded the matter to the District Basic Education Officer to decide afresh after giving the petitioner a hearing within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner gave any undertaking at the time of salary fixation
- Whether the petitioner misrepresented or committed fraud in obtaining the salary fixation order
- Whether the petitioner was given notice before the recovery proceedings
- Whether the judgments in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Jagdish are applicable to a case of compulsory retirement
- Whether the recovery order is valid in absence of a hearing
Subjects
- natural justice
- right to hearing
- government service
- salary recovery
- compulsory retirement
- administrative law
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 10167 of 2026
Mohan Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated
09.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 4, District Basic Education Officer,
District- Pilibhit, and the letter dated 01.06.2026 issued by Respondent No.
6, Manager, Janta Junior High School, Udaykaranpur, Puranpur, District-
Pilibhit, whereby recovery of Rs. 1,55,375/- has been sought from the
petitioner.
3. On 16.07.2026, the following order was passed:-
"Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery order dated 09.12.2025 has been
issued after nine years of the retirement of the petitioner, there being no fraud or misrepresentation on his
part. That too, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the same is
arbitrary in view of Rafiq Masih (supra) and is liable to be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents prays for and is granted ten days' time to seek
instructions on the following issues:-
(i) Whether the petitioner has given any undertaking at the time of fixation of salary;
(ii) Whether the petitioner has misrepresented or played fraud in obtaining the order of fixation of salary;
(iii) Whether the petitioner was put to notice before proceedings for recovery;
(iv) The fact that in the present case, the petitioner has been compulsory retired, therefore, whether the
judgments of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Jagdish (supra) would be applicable or not.
Put up this case on 27.07.2026 as fresh."
4. In compliance with the aforesaid order, instructions have been placed by
WRIA No. 10167 of 2026
2
means of filing a short counter affidavit, wherein the queries of the Court
have been answered at page 6 of the counter affidavit.
5. This Court finds that the queries of the Court have not been answered in a
proper manner. There is nothing on record to show that any undertaking was
given by the petitioner at the time of fixation of salary or any fraud /
misrepresentation was played by him, or that the petitioner was put to notice
prior to recovery.
6. In view of the settled position of law, impugned order has been passed in
violation of the principles as laid down in the judgment of State of Punjab
v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) And Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC
334.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 issued by
the respondent no.4 as well as letter dated 01.06.2026 issued by the
respondent no.6 are set-aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent
no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit to decide afresh, strictly in
accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order, after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is
no legal impediment.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
September 17, 2026
Jitendra/-
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…