JUDGMENT : SHAMIM AHMED, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 03.01.2019 and 09.05.2019 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering the amount as mentioned in the impugned orders dated 03.01.2019 and 09.05.2019 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet ends of justice. (iv) Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector in Agriculture Department of the State Government under the order dated 26.11.1982, in the pay scale of Rs. 400-615 and joined his post on 09.12.1982, since then he was performing his duties and never been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or was awarded any punishment by the department. By virtue of sincere and devoted duties, the petitioner was promoted from time to time and was promoted on the post of Senior Technical Assistant Group-B and in pursuance thereof, he joined on the said promoted post on 30.03.2016 in the office of District Plant Protection Officer, Gonda and thereafter, he was transferred to District Sant Kabir Nagar on 01.09.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was holding Class-III post in the Agriculture Department and his salary was voluntarily fixed by the competent Departmental-Authorities from time to time, in which the petitioner had no role. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is now been retired from service on 31.12.2019 just before the retirement the petitioner was served with orders dated 03.01.2019 and 09.05.2019 by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by which they have directed to recover an amount of Rs. 4,75,011/- from the salary of the petitioner on account of alleged wrong fixation of salary and paid in lieu thereof, w.e.f. 02.06.2007 to December, 2018. 4. 1 and 2 by which they have directed to recover an amount of Rs. 4,75,011/- from the salary of the petitioner on account of alleged wrong fixation of salary and paid in lieu thereof, w.e.f. 02.06.2007 to December, 2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the fixation of salary is the duty of the State Authorities and there is no role of the petitioner nor the petitioner played any fraud or suppression of material fact while the salary of the petitioner was fixed and if any, excess payment in lieu thereof has been paid is deemed to the fault of the State Authorities and the action of the State Authorities in recovering the said amount from the salary of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Standing Counsel in counter oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the excess payment made to the petitioner was to be recovered in accordance with law and the petitioner was not holding that post for which the payment was made, therefore, the impugned orders by which the recovery is being made is justified and no interference is required by this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in view of the Court, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has drawn the excess payment by playing fraud or by misrepresenting any fact before the authorities concerned, the excess payment was made by the department cannot be recovered on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled for the same. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Gopalji Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2004 (2) ESC 791 and was pleased to hold as follows in paragraph 20: “20. So far as the payment of excess amount, which the petitioner was not entitled is concerned, as there has been no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be asked to refund the same. More so, petitioner might have spent the same considering his own money. Recovery thereof would cause great financial hardship to the petitioner. In such circumstances, recovery should not be permitted. More so, petitioner might have spent the same considering his own money. Recovery thereof would cause great financial hardship to the petitioner. In such circumstances, recovery should not be permitted. Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 (2) SCC 521 , Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp 1 SCC 18 and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director and Others, 1997 AIR (SC) 2776.” 7. It is not out of place to mention here that the basic proposition of law laid down in the above decision has been consistently followed by this Court time and again and reiterated in Dr. Avinash Chand Goel vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (5) ESC 3035 and in paragraph no. 7, the following observation was made: “7. In the present case the established principle of law, that a person cannot be asked to repay the amount, which was not due to him, but has been paid to him without any misappropriation or fraud, is squarely applicable. In this case the petitioner had protested even to the alleged wrong fixation of the pay. He has given details of his entitlement for the correctness of the applicability of the pay scale and the benefits to be drawn by him under the orders of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash's case in, which not only the seniority but consequential benefits were also allowed to be given to those medical officers who were to be given promotions. In such case, the principle of law "no work no pay" will not be applicable.” 8. This Court in the case of Hansraj Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (2) ADJ 581 , has considered all the judgment in this regard passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. In such case, the principle of law "no work no pay" will not be applicable.” 8. This Court in the case of Hansraj Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (2) ADJ 581 , has considered all the judgment in this regard passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. It is also relevant to mention here that in regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the different High Courts there arose contradictions on the views of the Hon'ble Judges and the stage of confusion started as to which judgment be implemented for the cause and the issue was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2014 8 SCC 883 and the Hon'ble Apex Court considering all the judgments passed earlier in this regard, was pleased to pass the final direction and the conclusion was given in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment, which is given as under:- “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 employees, 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.” 10. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employees, 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.” 10. From the perusal of the proposition of law laid down in the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, established that the case of the petitioner clearly fall in that category and is not liable to refund any amount in pursuance of the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities. As there has been no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and petitioner could not be asked by respondent to return the same, the recovery of the amount would cause great hardship to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders of recovery dated 03.01.2019 and 09.05.2019 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 03.01.2019 and 09.05.2019 are quashed. No order as to costs.