The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that monetary recovery from the retiral dues of a retired Class-III employee on account of an alleged erroneous pay fixation made years prior is impermissible in law. Justice Manish Kumar Nigam allowed in part a writ petition filed by a retired Head Constable (Driver), quashing the recovery of Rs. 11,51,840/- from his post-retiral benefits and directing the State authorities to refund the deducted sum with 7% simple interest per annum within six weeks.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Brijesh Singh Dagar, was appointed as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) on February 20, 1984. He was subsequently transferred to the Civil Police, posted as Constable (Driver), and later promoted to Head Constable (Driver), which is a Class-III post. After serving until superannuation, he retired from service on July 31, 2025.
Prior to his retirement, respondent No. 4 issued an explanation notice dated October 24, 2024, proposing a revision of the petitioner’s pay scale. The petitioner submitted his reply on October 26, 2024, clarifying that he had never submitted any application seeking an increase in his pay scale, while also mentioning that he was nearing retirement and had several financial liabilities to attend to.
Rejecting the petitioner’s explanation, respondent No. 4 passed an order dated February 15, 2025, refixing the petitioner’s salary and reducing his pay scale from Rs. 64,100/- to Rs. 56,900/- with retrospective effect from July 1, 2023. The order asserted that an amount of Rs. 11,51,840/- had been paid in excess, which was subsequently deducted from the petitioner’s retiral dues.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Ramesh Chandra Tiwari contended that the order dated February 15, 2025, refixing salary retrospectively after a considerable lapse of time, was entirely arbitrary. He argued that deducting Rs. 11,51,840/- from the petitioner’s post-retiral dues directly violated established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022), and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others (2024), as well as judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Head Constable Prahlad Singh And Another v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others (2025) and Sampat Singh v. State Of U.P. and 4 others (2026). The petitioner emphasized that he was in no way responsible for any wrongful pay fixation and prayed for the refund of the deducted amount along with interest.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel representing the State submitted that the petitioner was erroneously granted the benefit of a second promotional pay scale with effect from November 10, 2008, owing to a punishment order dated November 20, 2006, and was subsequently granted a third ACP with effect from November 10, 2010. The respondents asserted that the impugned order merely corrected this error and recovered the excess amount paid. Addressing paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the State highlighted in its counter affidavit that the petitioner had submitted a declaration agreeing to the refund of any amount found to be in excess of permissible limits under rules governing pension, gratuity, and commutation of pension.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
In its evaluation, the High Court observed that the respondents did not deny that the petitioner was blameless regarding the alleged wrongful pay fixation. The initial pay fixation occurred in 2008 and was sought to be rectified only in 2025, after a lapse of 17 years.
Examining the legal landscape governing recovery from employees, the Court adverted to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, highlighting paragraph 12:
“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.”
The Court further considered the principles reiterated in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (AIR 2022 SC 2153), where the Supreme Court observed:
“9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or 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, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.”
The High Court also noted citations discussed within Thomas Daniel, including Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995 Supp (1) SCC 18), Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India (2006) 11 SCC 709, and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475. In Syed Abdul Qadir, the Apex Court emphasized that excess payments resulting from wrong interpretation of rules without misrepresentation or fraud by employees cannot be recovered, particularly when employees have retired or are on the verge of retirement.
This position was reaffirmed in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others (2024) 8 SCR 377, holding that decisions to reduce pay scales and recover excess amounts cannot be applied retrospectively after a long duration of time.
Addressing the State’s reliance on the undertaking submitted by the petitioner, the High Court referred to its decision in Head Constable Prahlad Singh And Another v. The State Of U.P. (Writ A No. 1750 of 2022), where it held:
“10. In my considered view, this would not apply to attract the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). What has been held in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) and what has been genuine also that undertaking should have furnished by employee at the time of pay-fixation. This is not a case in hand. Any employee if has furnished any undertaking at the time of retirement that he would be refunding the excess amount, this undertaking is to be taken only in respect of any wrongful computation of pension amount as per the last pay drawn and also the computation amount and calculation of other post retirement dues.”
“11. Such an undertaking cannot be read to mean that employee intended an exercise of re-fixation to be undertaken against him from a back date and that too without notice to him and to further invite resultant recovery due to assessment of excess salary on account of such alleged wrongful pay-fixation.”
Furthermore, the Court referred to Sampat Singh v. State Of U.P. (Writ A No. 6282 of 2026), highlighting that pension and gratuity are hard-earned property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, protected under the guarantee of life with dignity under Article 21, citing D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983), State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013), and Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2019).
Decision of the Court
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the High Court concluded that the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation after 17 years could not be sustained.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition in part and issued a writ of mandamus directing the state respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 11,51,840/- deducted from the petitioner’s retiral dues, along with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of deduction until actual payment. The Court directed the respondents to complete this exercise within a period of six weeks.
Case Title: Brijesh Singh Dagar v. State of U.P. and 5 others
Case No.: Writ – A No. 4726 of 2026
Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
Date: August 06, 2026
