Allahabad High Court
PARAS NATH RAWAT SWEEPERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The Court quashed the order of deduction and held that recovery of the excess amount from the retired employee is impermissible.
Summary
Paras Nath Rawat, a former sweeper, retired on 31-10-2022 and later had Rs.2,94,000 deducted from his post‑retirement benefits after the authorities corrected his pay‑scale and deemed the amount an excess payment. The State argued that the deduction was justified because the pay‑scale error had been rectified and the excess amount was adjusted against his dues. The petitioner contended that he was not responsible for the pay‑scale error and that recovery from a retired employee is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. The Court examined the guidelines laid down in Rafiq Masih, which prohibit recovery from retired employees in such circumstances, and held that the deduction was impermissible. Consequently, the order dated 01‑09‑2022 effecting the deduction was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be refunded the full amount within three months, with interest for any delay. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a deduction of excess salary from a retired employee’s post‑retirement benefits is permissible under law.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih bar recovery of excess payments from retired employees.
- Whether the order dated 01‑09‑2022 effecting the deduction should be set aside.
Subjects
- excess salary recovery
- retired employee
- public service
- mandamus
- Rafiq Masih guidelines
- post‑retirement benefits
- equitable relief
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5718 of 2025
Paras Nath Rawat Sweeper
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Madan Mohan Lal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Akhil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following
prayers:-
"(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2, the Commandant-39 th Battalion, P.A.C. Mirzapur,
District Mirzapur to refund the deducted/ recovered amount of
Rs.2,94,000/-. within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court.
(ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2, the Commandant-39th Battalion, P.A.C. Mirzapur,
District Mirzapur to decide the representation dated 25.01.2025 of the
petitioner (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) within stipulated period as
fixed by this Hon'ble court."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner while working on the
post of sweeper superannuated from his services on 31.10.2022. Till the time of
retirement no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After his
retirement a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- was deducted by the Respondent No.2 from his post
retiral benefits due to access payment made to him.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it is stated that petitioner pay scale was
wrongly fixed to Rs.9910/- in place of Rs.8940/- from 23.07.2006 and, therefore as
per the direction given by the Finance Controller, the necessary correction has been
made by the Commandant, 39th Battalion, PAC, Mirzapur on 01.09.2022 and the pay
scale of the petitioner has been corrected from 23.07.2006.
WRIA No. 5718 of 2025
2
6. It is further stated that on the basis of the aforesaid correction it has been found that
the amount of Rs.2,94,168/- was paid in excess to the petitioner, therefore, the said
excess payment has already been made to the petitioner has been adjusted from the
petitioner's retiral dues and in this regard an undertaking given by the petitioner, copy
of which is appended as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit.
7. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid undertaking was taken by
the respondents after his retirement while payment of post retiral dues due to excess
payment made to him. He next submitted that excess payment was made due to
incorrect fixation of pay scale, for which petitioner is not responsible and he has
neither played any fraud nor concealed any fact, therefore, such recovery is in teeth of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334.
8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records as well as impugned order. Apex Court in the case of
Rafiq Masih (supra) while dealing with such dispute, had framed following
guidelines:-
"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, summarize 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."
WRIA No. 5718 of 2025
3
9. Undisputedly, case of petitioner is squarely covered with the judgement of Rafiq
Masih (supra) and petitioner was not responsible for fixation of incorrect pay scale
and consequently for excess payment.
10. In this view of the matter, orders passed dated 01.09.2022 by the
Commandant 39th Battalion, PAC, Mirzapur, copy of which is appended as
Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed.
11. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
12. The respondent concerned is directed to release the entire deducted amount i.e.,
Rs.2,94,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this order. In case, the amount of Rs.2,94,000/- is not
released within the aforesaid period, same shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum
from the date the amount became due till the date of its payment.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
April 2, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…