Allahabad High Court
KUNWAR GYANENDRA PAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The order revising the petitioner’s salary retrospectively and reducing his pension is illegal and must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Sub‑Inspector, challenged a 2025 order that retrospectively revised his salary from 2012 without notice, which consequently reduced his pension. He argued that no fraud or misrepresentation was involved and that the State could not recover excess salary paid more than a decade earlier. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Sushil Kumar Singhal, Thomas Daniel, Jagdish Prasad Singh, Syed Abdul Qadir, D.S. Nakar, State of Jharkhand, Ashwani Kumar) which hold that retrospective salary reductions and recovery of excess emoluments are barred in the absence of fraud and when the mistake is discovered after a long period. The court found the impugned order illegal, violative of natural justice and constitutional rights to property and dignity, and therefore set it aside. It directed the respondent to pay the petitioner his full pension based on the last drawn salary and to release the reduced pension amount withheld since retirement.
Issues considered
- Whether a salary revision order issued retrospectively without notice violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the State can recover excess salary paid due to a mistake made more than 13 years ago.
- Whether the pension of a retired employee can be reduced on the basis of such retrospective salary revision.
- Whether equity precludes recovery of excess emoluments where there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.
- Whether the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
Subjects
- salary revision
- pension
- excess payment recovery
- natural justice
- right to property
- Article 21
- retirement benefits
- equity
- constitutional law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6907 of 2026
Kunwar Gyanendra Pal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kailash Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter)
Commissionerate Varanasi/respondent No.2 in the year 2025 by which
the salary of the petitioner has been revised is under challenge.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the aforesaid
order, salary of the petitioner has been revised from 01.07.2012. It is
argued that the petitioner has been retired from the post of Sub Inspector
Civil Police on 31.07.2025. It is argued that the before passing the
aforesaid order, no notice or opportunity of hearing has been provided to
the petitioner. It is argued that recovery could not be sought from the
petitioner for excess payment made during service period after lapse 13
years back. It is argued that nothing has been stated in the order impugned
that any fraud or misrepresentation has been made by the petitioner at any
point of time or at the time of re-fixation of the pay scale.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv
Irrigation Department and others reported in (2014)16 SCC
444:2014(2) ESC 271 (SC) in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court was
seized of a similar dispute and placing reliance on Government Order
dated 16.01.2007 has held that if any mistake had been committed in pay
fixation prior to retirement then by virtue of Government Order dated
16.01.2007 neither any salary paid by mistake could have been recovered
nor pension could have been reduced since records of 34 months prior to
superannuation only could be examined for the purpose of grant of
WRIA No. 6907 of 2026
2
pension.
4. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by learned Standing
Counsel.
5. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs.
State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010) reported in 2022
Supreme(SC) 387 decided on 02.05.2022 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
WRIA No. 6907 of 2026
3
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 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) ."
6. 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
WRIA No. 6907 of 2026
4
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.
7. 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
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.
8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that
the order impugned by the respondent No.4 is perse illegal and against the
provisions of law, hence the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set
aside.
9. The writ petition is allowed. Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Headquarter) Commissionerate Varanasi/respondent No.2 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.
September, 2025. 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 7, 2026
saqlain
Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…