JUDGMENT : (Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) : 1. Heard Sri Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amarnath Singh Baghel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by Opposite Party No.2 after summoning the same by which petitioner's salary has been revised since 20.12.2006 as mentioned in letter dated 07.03.2024 contained in Annexure No.1 & order dated 14.05.2024 passed by Opposite Party No.3 after summoning the same in pursuance of the order dated 20.02.2024 whereby the recovery of Rs.5,38,781/-has been done as mentioned in letter dated 29.05.2024 contained in Annexure No.2 and further be pleased to quash PPO, GPO & CPO dated 18.04.2024 as contained in Annexure No.3 & 4 respectively to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Opposite Parties to repay/refund the deducted/recovered amount Rs.5,38,781 /-along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum deducted from commuted pension payable to the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of last basic pay Rs.64,100/-drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement." 3. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that he has received complete instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, therefore, those instructions may be perused, the same are taken on record. 4. As per the aforesaid instructions itself, the petitioner retired from the post of Sub Inspector, which is a Class-III post, on 30.04.2023 and one undertaking has been received from him on 21.03.2023, which is before his retirement. As per the aforesaid undertaking, no specific undertaking has been taken from the petitioner in respect of any particular payment if that has been given in excess to its admissibility would be recoverable. Besides, on typed proforma, general undertaking has been taken from the petitioner and on one typed proforma, one indemnity bond has been taken from the petitioner without filling the detail of the petitioner properly. The aforesaid fact makes it crystal clear that as an eyewash, the undertaking was taken from the petitioner without indicating specifically that if any excess amount is paid to the petitioner at particular time, the same may be recovered from him. The aforesaid fact makes it crystal clear that as an eyewash, the undertaking was taken from the petitioner without indicating specifically that if any excess amount is paid to the petitioner at particular time, the same may be recovered from him. Perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the benefit of pay scale was provided to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2008 and at the time of making such payment, admittedly, no undertaking was taken from the petitioner by the Department and the impugned amount, which has been recovered from the petitioner at the time of his retirement, is relating to the year 2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.7 of the writ petition, which is a Government Order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary of Finance addressing to all the Head of Departments of the State of Uttar Pradesh wherein vide para-4 (1), it has been categorically indicated that at the time of retirement or after the retirement, record of the employee of last 34 months may be examined, not beyond that, but in the present case, record of the petitioner is being examined from the year 2008, which is much beyond the period of 34 months. Attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department & Others, Civil appeal No.5262 of 2008, referring paras 7, 10 & 11, which read as under:- "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. 10. 10. For the aforestated reasons, we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and direct the respondents not to recover any amount of salary which had been paid to the appellant in pursuance of some mistake committed in pay fixation in 1986. The amount of pension shall also not be reduced and the appellant shall be paid pension as fixed earlier at the time of his retirement. It is pertinent to note that the Government had framed such a policy under its G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have taken a different view in the matter of re-fixing pension of the appellant. 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." 6. The Apex Court has interpreted the purport and intent of Government Order dated 16.01.2007 and has observed that the respondent-employer could not have passed any order for recovery of excess salary paid to the appellant or for reducing the pension of the appellant beyond such period. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.3194 of 2022, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Suresh Kumar Tripathi, whereby the judgment of the Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) has been followed dismissing the writ petition filed by the State holding that if any recovery has been proposed or executed against the employee after his retirement or at the time of his retirement in derogation of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) and State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , such recovery may not be permissible. Besides, the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been clarified by the Apex Court in re; High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that if at the time of making excess payment, if any, any specific and categoric undertaking is received from the employee, such amount may be recovered but in absence of such undertaking at the time of making excess payment, the benefit of the judgment in re; Rafiq Masih (supra) would be provided to the employee concerned. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by opposite party no.2 and the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by opposite party no.3 but could not defend those orders particularly in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) whereby the Apex Court has interpreted the Government Order dated 16.01.2007 (supra) as well as in the light of the dictum of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Jagdev Singh (supra). 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the impugned recovery is not only in violation of Government Order dated 16.01.2007 (supra), which has been interpreted and affirmed by the Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) and such recovery has been executed in absence of any specific undertaking of the present petitioner at the time of making payment of such amount, if any, and the undertaking at the time of retirement is meaningless, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Rafiq Masih (supra) and in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Jagdev Singh (supra). 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 11. The impugned orders dated 20.02.2024 & 14.05.2024 passed by opposite parties no.2 & 3 respectively are hereby set aside/quashed. 12. The opposite parties are directed to refund/ repay the deducted/ recovered amount of Rs.5,38,781/-to the petitioner forthwith, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 8% p.a. 13. 12. The opposite parties are directed to refund/ repay the deducted/ recovered amount of Rs.5,38,781/-to the petitioner forthwith, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 8% p.a. 13. The opposite parties are further directed to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of last basic pay Rs.64,100/-drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement since the pension of the petitioner may not be reduced by making exercise of re-fixation of last pay drawn in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra). 14. No order as to costs.