WRIA/14977/2025 of MOHD. TAJAMMUL Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 19 December 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging orders dated 24.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 whereby benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to petitioner earlier upon completion of 26 years of satisfactory service has been withdrawn on the ground that it has been incorrectly granted and therefore recovery/adjustment has been directed to be instituted against petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is currently employed as a Class III employee and by means of impugned order, recovery has been effected without affording him any opportunity of hearing, for benefits which petitioner has been drawing for the past twenty years. It is submitted that impugned order does not indicate any complicity or misrepresentation on part of petitioner in the alleged excess payment of salary. He has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4. Learned State Counsel has not been provided written instructions in this matter but submits that impugned order has been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has been made Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, Kajol Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohd. Tajammul .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

to petitioner.

5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from a perusal of impugned orders dated 24.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 that re-fixation of pay of petitioner with effect from January 2025 has been effected along with directions for recovery but it is also evident that prior to passing of impugned order, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra) has clearly enunciated that recovery cannot be effected from salary of Class III employee particularly when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the employee.

7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned orders dated 24.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to authority concerned to pass orders afresh regarding pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. Aforesaid exercise shall keep in mind directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra). Such a decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks. Refund of recovery made from petitioner's salary shall be made by the authority within same period in light of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (supra).

8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. December 19, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 14977 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench