JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Pranav Mishra and Sri Ratnesh Singh, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the opposite party No.3 (as contained in Annexure No.1) to the writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refund the amount deducted from the post of retiral dues of the petitioner without any diminution to his emoluments." 3. The precise contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired from the post of Follower, which is a Class-IV post, on 30.06.2022 while serving at Sitapur. The petitioner is aggrieved from the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District-Sitapur indicating therein that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2022 and on 30.07.2022 the Finance Controller of the Police Department found that the petitioner was paid some excess amount to the tune of Rs.5,38,674/- while providing him the benefit of revised pay-scale. This order further reads that the total amount regarding commutation of pension is Rs.7,94,490/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.5,38,674/- he would be paid Rs.2,55,816/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the aforesaid manner after declaring a sum of Rs.5,38,674/- as excess amount that amount has been deducted from the commutation of pension which is not permissible under the law as no amount can be recoverable from the amount of commutation of pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that at the time of providing the benefit of revised pay-scale when he was in service, no undertaking was received from the petitioner inasmuch as if any undertaking was received from him that would have been indicated in the impugned order. He has further submitted that before deducting the amount in question from commutation of pension no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner inasmuch as if any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, it would have been indicated in the impugned order itself, but both the aforesaid legal requirements are missing in the impugned order. He has further submitted that before deducting the amount in question from commutation of pension no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner inasmuch as if any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, it would have been indicated in the impugned order itself, but both the aforesaid legal requirements are missing in the impugned order. Besides, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para-18 of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 here-in-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 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." 6. (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." 6. On the basis of aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Apex Court has held that no recovery in the name of excess amount may be executed against employee who is Class-III or Class-IV employee after his retirement and in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2022 while serving on Class-IV post and the impugned recovery has been executed on 29.04.2023, therefore, the aforesaid impugned order is not only illegal, aribtrary and violative of principles of natural justice but the same is in utter disregard to the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Rafiq Masih (supra) also. 7. Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel has requested for sometime to seek complete written instructions in the matter, but on being confronted on the point that neither any reference of undertaking at the time of granting the benefit of revised pay-scale has been indicated in the impugned order nor the reference of an opportunity of hearing has been indicated in the order, Sri Sharma has stated that though both the aforesaid things must have been indicated in the impugned order by the Competent Authority but the same have not been indicated in the impugned order so if he is given some reasonable time he may seek complete instructions on that points too. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, though the request of Sri Sandeep Sharma for seeking sometime to seek instructions is a reasonable request but if there is any mistake apparent on the face of record which makes the impugned order non est and uncalled for in the eyes of law then no purpose would be served to provide any time to seek instructions from the Competent Authority, therefore, the aforesaid request of Sri Sharma is declined. 9. 9. The present petitioner retired from Class-IV post on 30.06.2022 and if any excess amount was paid to him while providing him the benefit of revised pay-scale when he was in service, any undertaking could have been taken from him and if such undertaking was taken from the petitioner the specific recital to that effect must have been indicated in the impugned order but no such undertaking was taken from the petitioner. Further, if after almost 11 months from the retirement of the petitioner any recovery is to be undertaken, at least one opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioner issuing show cause but no such opportunity has been provided to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and for that reason the impugned order where the civil consequences are involved, would not sustain in the eyes of law. If any explanation or show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the recital to that effect must have been indicated in the impugned order but since no such indication is there then it can be presumed that no such opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before executing the recovery from him. 10. This is a trite law that no recovery of any kind whatsoever in the name of excess amount being paid can be executed or deducted from the amount of commutation of pension, therefore, on that ground alone the impugned order dated 29.04.2023 vitiates. 11. Lastly, when the Apex Court in the case in re: Rafiq Masih (supra) has settled the legal proposition to the effect that no recovery in the name of excess payment would be undertaken from Class-III or Class-IV employees at the fag end of retirement and after the retirement then such recovery may not be executed from the petitioner who retired from Class-IV post. Therefore, the impugned order is in utter disregard to the direction being issued by the Apex Court. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.04.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, District-Sitapur is hereby quashed being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and being violative of directions of Apex Court issued in the case in re:Rafiq Masih (supra). 13. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.04.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, District-Sitapur is hereby quashed being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and being violative of directions of Apex Court issued in the case in re:Rafiq Masih (supra). 13. The Competent Authorities, who may be the Superintendent of Police, District-Sitapur or the Finance Controller of the Police Department, U.P., Lucknow, are directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,38,674/-, which has been deducted from the amount of commutation of pension, to the petitioner forthwith, preferable within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled for interest on delayed payment of such amount at the rate of 10% per annum. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. 15. No order as to cost.