# Sohan Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1354
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 227 of 2026
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sohan-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54031
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(a)

Weekly Sunday visitation

Season wise, time segmented
(b)
Location- Home only

Location-Home and Outing included to neighborhood part (Regional Science
Centre, Aliganj)

(c)
Time - 10:00 AM to 05:00 PM

Summer-Morning 10:00 AM to 01:00 PM (home visitation)
Evening - 05:00 to 07:30 PM outside visit (home before : 07:30 PM)
Winter-Morning 10:00 AM to 01:00 PM (home before : 01:30 PM), outside
visit Evening 05:00 PM to 07:30 PM (home visitation)

(d)
Visitation of Grandparents not included

Grandparents could visit every 4th Sunday- Outside within 5 km radius

(e)

No time limit specified for phone/Video call

Minimum 10 minutes mandated

84. Having considered the aforesaid two orders and noticing the modification made, this Court
finds that where the original order dated 06.01.2022 which otherwise is a robust order, but it could
not be implemented, in such circumstances, there was actually no reason to modify the said order
especially when the earlier order itself was not being appropriately adhered. By making cosmetic
changes and including the right of grandparents to visit the child in itself was not required when the
initial order itself did not prohibit the grandparents.

85. In the given circumstances, this Court finds that the order dated 06.01.2022 was good
enough to protect the visitation rights of the father. Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to change
the order dated 06.01.2022 insofar as the visitation rights of the father is concerned. The same shall
be adhered by the parties and this Court expresses a hope that the warring parties, for the sake of
welfare and best interest of their son, may not adopt a recalcitrant attitude rather the child be
permitted to have the love and affection of both his parents.

86. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in light of the aforesaid directions, all pending
applications are disposed of and both the intra-Court appeals are also disposed of in light of the
observations and directions made hereinabove. The parties shall bear their own costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1354
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 227 of 2026

Sohan Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether re-fixation of pay and recovery of alleged excess salary after retirement of the
petitioner, without affording opportunity of hearing and in absence of any fraud or
1 All. Sohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1355
misrepresentation, was legally sustainable in view of settled law governing recovery of excess
payments.

Headnotes
Service Law - Pay fixation - A.C.P. benefit - Re-fixation after superannuation - Recovery of
excess payment - No misrepresentation - No opportunity of hearing - Violation of natural
justice - Recovery impermissible - Orders quashed - Pension to be fixed on last pay drawn -
Refund directed.

HELD:
The impugned orders re-fixing the petitioner's pay and directing recovery of alleged excess payment were
passed after his superannuation and without affording any opportunity of hearing. Such action is violative of
principles of natural justice. [Paras 6, 12]

The material on record does not indicate any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in
receiving the benefits of first A.C.P. granted in the year 2013. The excess payment, if any, was on account of
error attributable to the employer. [Paras 3, 7]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) has categorically held that
recovery from Class III and IV employees, particularly in absence of fraud or misrepresentation, is
impermissible. [Para 7]

It has further been reiterated in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar that reduction of pay scale and
recovery of excess payment after long lapse of time, especially post-retirement, is arbitrary, inequitable and
unsustainable. [Paras 9-10]

Similarly, in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, it has been held that where mistake in pay fixation
occurred long prior to retirement, neither recovery of salary nor reduction of pension is permissible,
particularly in light of Government Order dated 16.01.2007. [Paras 8, 11]

In the present case, the re-fixation of pay and consequential recovery, effected more than a decade after
grant of benefit and after retirement of the petitioner, is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the
Supreme Court and applicable Government policy. [Paras 10, 12]

Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The respondents are directed to determine
pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn and to refund any recovered amount within stipulated time.
[Para 12]

Petition allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 - relied
on; Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others, (2014) 16 SCC
444 - relied on; Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others, (2024) 8 SCR 377 - relied
on; Mohinder Singh Gill and others v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 - referred
to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution of India; Relevant Government Order dated 16.01.2007.

List of Keywords
Pay re-fixation; Recovery of excess payment; A.C.P.; Post-retirement recovery; Natural justice; No
misrepresentation; Pension fixation; Refund of recovery.
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
Orders dated 29.09.2025 and 30.10.2025 whereby pay of the petitioner was re-fixed and recovery of alleged
excess payment was directed.

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Pankaj Pandey
For the Respondents: Learned C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.09.2025 and 30.10.2025 whereby payfixation of petitioner has been redetermined with orders of recovery also being issued on allegation
that benefit of first A.C.P. granted to petitioner on 28.06.2013 was incorrectly granted.

3. It has been submitted that impugned orders have been passed after superannuation of
petitioner from service on 31.07.2025 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 twelve 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 orders have been passed in view of fact that due to some error, excess payment has
been made to petitioner.

5. In view of fact that ACP granted to petitioner with effect from 28.06.2013 has been
redetermined and benefits withdrawn on the allegations that the same were provided to him/her
incorrectly, has been clearly indicated in impugned order. Since the facts have clearly been brought
on record by means of impugned order, the petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission
stage itself in terms of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh
Gill & others v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [AIR 1978 SC 851]
dispensing with requirement of filing of counter affidavit.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal
of material on record, it is evident from material on record that re-fixation of pay of petitioner with
effect from year 2013 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.

7. 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 and Class IV employees
particularly when there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on part of the employee.
1 All. Sohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1357

8. 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 pension.

9. The said aspect has also been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others (2024) 8 SCR 377 in the following manner: -

"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 others1,
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 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)

22. Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, held as
under: -
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is
frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay
or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently
the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the
applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have
recognised the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce
hardship to the innocent employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation. (emphasis
supplied)

23. In the case of State of Punjab and Others V. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others3, this Court held as under:-

"18. 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 hereinabove, we
may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the
employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C
and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within
one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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. (emphasis supplied)

24. Recently, this Court in Thomas Daniel V. State of Kerala and Others, held that the
State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex-employee after the delay of 10 years.

25. The Government Resolution dated 8th February, 1999 to be specific, the highlighted
portion supra is amenable to the interpretation that it protects the status and pay of those
employees who had received their time bound promotions prior to 31st December, 1995. As a
consequence, the Secretary concerned, while rejecting the representation clearly misinterpreted
and misapplied the said Resolution to the detriment of the appellant.

26. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna
also seem to have fallen in the same error. In addition thereto, we are of the view that any step of
reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a
punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. Thus, no such
action could have been taken against the appellant, more particularly, because he 4 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 536 had been promoted as an ADSO, while drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500
applicable to the post, way back on 10th March, 1991 and had also superannuated eight years ago
before the recovery notice dated 15th April, 2009 was issued. The impugned action directing
reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also
suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same
cannot be sustained."
1 All. Jai Prakash Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1359

10. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgement in the present case and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, it is quite evident that re-fixation of pay scale, therefore, is clearly
against verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra) not to
mention the Government order dated 16.1.2007.

11. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal
(supra) in the following manner:-

"7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant, it is not in dispute that the Appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at
the time of his retirement his salary was Rs. 11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been
fixed as Rs. 9000/-. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been
committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the
aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the Appellant could have
been recovered nor pension of the Appellant could have been reduced. "

"11. The submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that the
Appellant would be getting more amount than what he was entitled to cannot be accepted in view of the
policy laid down by the Government in G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the Government feels that mistakes
are committed very often, it would be open to the Government to change its policy but as far as the G.O.
dated 16th January, 2007 is in force, the Respondent-employer could not have passed any order for
recovery of the excess salary paid to the Appellant or for reducing pension of the Appellant. "

12. Considering aforesaid pronouncements, it is evident that the impugned orders are clearly against
the dictum enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. In view thereof, the
impugned order(s) is/are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in
the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to determine pension and pensionary
benefits admissible to petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn. Any recovery made from petitioner
shall be refunded within six weeks from the date certified copy of this order.

13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1359
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 235 of 2004

Jai Prakash Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration