SHIV SHANKAR RICHHARIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - A No. - 6678 of 2026

Shiv Shankar Richhariya
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                            :    Chetan Prakash
Counsel for Respondent(s)                            :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
                      HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

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
                                                               WRIA No. 6678 of 2026
                                   2

     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 deciding the earlier writ
petition filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid judgements were duly taken note
by this Court but while deciding the claim of the petitioner, the same has not
been taken into consideration.

6. From perusal of the order impugned, the Court is more than satisfied that the
order passed by the respondent No.4 on behalf of respondent No.3 is not only
illegal but contemptuous in nature.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra).
                                                                WRIA No. 6678 of 2026
                                   3


The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment i.e., paragraph-18 reads as
follows:-

     "(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.
     Admittedly, there does not appear to be any case of misrepresentation or
     fraud on the part of the petitioners in the matter, nor the learned standing
     counsel has raised any such issue not it has been indicated in the written
     instructions which are on record."

9. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) 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 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
                                                              WRIA No. 6678 of 2026
                                  4

     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 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 result of wrong interpretation of the
     Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held
     responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction,
     negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government
     of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers
     submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on
     the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
     the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we
     are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in
     excess to the appellant teachers should be made. (emphasis supplied) ."

10. There has been recurring and troubling pattern that retired employees
are compelled to approach the Court because their pension, gratuity and
other retiral benefits are either withheld or unnecessarily delayed by
Administrative Authority. It is an accepted position that gratuity and
pension are not bounties and employee earns these benefits by dint of
long continuous faithful and unblemished service as was held in the case
of D.S. Nakar vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305. It is a
hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of
"property". This right to property cannot be taken away without due
process of law as per Article 300 as was held in State of Jharkhand vs.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210.

11. Retired employees are compelled to engage in prolonged litigation
merely to receive their lawful pension and gratuity, their dignity and their
financial security is severely compromised. Article 21 of the Constitution
of India which guarantee the right to life with dignity also extends to
individuals in their old age. In the case of Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of
India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 636, it was held that there cannot be any
doubt that the right to life with dignity is a part of right to life as
postulated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a right would
                                                         WRIA No. 6678 of 2026
                                5


be rendered meaningless if aged person does not have the financial means
to take care of his basic necessity and has to depend for it on others.

12. It is unfortunate that time and again not only this Court but by the
Hon'ble Apex Cort it has been held that the State Government cannot
reduce the pay scale and recover the excess amount before/or/after
retirement of the Government Servant, insofar as the present case is
concerned, it is clear from perusal of order impugned that on the ground
that wrong fixation has been made in favour of the petitioner in the year
2016 at the time of sixth pay commission and thereafter again same thing
has been recorded by way of seventh pay commission, the recovery order
has been passed by the respondent No.3.

13. It further reveals from perusal of the record that earlier in the writ
petition filed by he petitioner when the judgment was delivered in the
case of petitioner on November 15, 2025, in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid
judgment a reference has been made by this Court in respect of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih
(Supra) and Thomas Daniel (Supra) but in the entire order passed by the
respondent no.4 on behalf of respondent No.3 the same has not been taken
into consideration for the reasons best known to him. Large number of
cases are coming before this Court with identical controversy and in some
of the cases as and when personal affidavit has been sought for by the
concerned Commissioner as well as Principal Secretary (Home) to
explain the reasons, the necessary payments will be released. Insofar as
the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, in large number of cases orders
were passed by this Court regarding the deduction from the post retiral
benefits of the Government Servants.

14. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent Nos.3 and 4
are habitues not to obey the orders passed by this Court as well as by the
Hon'ble Apex Court which is clear from perusal of the order impugned.
                                                                                            WRIA No. 6678 of 2026
                                                                  6


                                  15. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the decision
                                  dated 23.02.2026 taken by the respondent No.4 is absolutely vague and
                                  the same has been passed against the law of land, therefore, the same is
                                  liable to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed.

                                  16. The writ petition is allowed.

                                  17. respondent        No.4/Deputy   Commissioner         of   Police,    Agra
                                  Commissionrate & respondent No.3/Commissioner of Police, Agra is
                                  directed to provide all the benefits namely payment of pension to the
                                  petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by him at the time of his
                                  retirement w.e.f. May, 2026. The reduced pension which has been paid to
                                  the petitioner after his retirement till April 2026 be also released in his
                                  favour within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified
                                  copy of this order.



                                                                                            (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                  May 5, 2026
                                  saqlain




Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad