MO IFRAHIMversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - A No. - 6832 of 2026

Mo Ifrahim
                                                              .....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

02.04.2024 recovering Rs.4,46,619/- from 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 at Police

Station Najibabad, 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 after 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. 6832 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 02.04.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police recovering
                                                                                           WRIA No. 6832 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                  Rs.4,46,619/- from 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