The Allahabad High Court has directed Uttar Pradesh authorities to refund ₹6,74,404 deducted from a retired police head constable’s pensionary benefits after his salary was retrospectively revised. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that the recovery and post-retirement pay revision were impermissible under the applicable government orders and Supreme Court precedents.
Background
Suraj Singh, a retired Head Constable who had served in the Uttar Pradesh Police, retired on July 31, 2021, upon reaching the age of superannuation. Following an audit, the authorities found that his pay had allegedly been fixed incorrectly from July 2016 and ordered a revision of his salary.
The revised calculation resulted in an alleged excess payment of ₹6,74,404. The department deducted this amount from ₹9,36,083 payable towards his pensionary benefits, leaving him with ₹2,61,679.
Challenging the deduction and subsequent pay revision, Singh approached the High Court. He argued that the authorities could not reopen his pay fixation after retirement or recover amounts paid due to an administrative error. The State, however, relied on his undertaking to refund any excess payment and argued that public money paid beyond entitlement could be recovered.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta examined the Uttar Pradesh Government Orders dated January 16, 2007, and May 7, 2007, along with Supreme Court decisions governing recovery of excess salary payments from retired employees.
The Court noted that the applicable rules restricted retrospective pay corrections and required the employee to receive notice and a reasonable opportunity to explain before any correction or recovery. In Singh's case, no notice or hearing had been provided before the deduction.
The Court also clarified that an undertaking obtained at retirement could not automatically justify recovery. The undertaking contemplated in the Supreme Court's decision in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh concerned one furnished when the employee opted for the revised pay scale, not merely an indemnity obtained at retirement.
The Court observed:
“However, that doesn't mean that any undertaking or indemnity bonds taken by the respondents at the time of retirement would entitle them to recover the amount as in Jagdev (Supra), the undertaking, which is to be relied upon is the undertaking at the time of fixation of the pay scale, which is stated to be wrong.”
It further held that the authorities' action was inconsistent with the applicable government orders and the legal principles laid down in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department and State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the orders dated July 27, 2022, August 22, 2022, and February 24, 2023, relating to pay refixation and recovery.
The Court directed the respondents to refund ₹6,74,404 with 8% annual interest within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is produced.
It also directed that Singh's ancillary dues be calculated on the basis of his last pay drawn at retirement and that his pension be fixed accordingly.
The writ petition was allowed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
- Case Number: Writ-A No. 16910 of 2023
- Judge: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
- Decision Date: September 29, 2026
