The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an employee claiming that adverse entries in their confidential service records were never communicated cannot be required to prove the negative. The burden to establish that such communication was made rests entirely with the department. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh while reviewing a tribunal’s judgment in Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589). The court noted that the tribunal had erred in placing the onus on the petitioner to demonstrate that he had not been informed of the adverse remarks, overlooking the legal principle that while a fact can be proved, its negation cannot. The bench emphasized that it was incumbent upon the department to affirmatively show that the adverse entries had been communicated to the employee. The court further observed that the tribunal had apparently failed to recognise this distinction when revisiting its earlier judgment, particularly in circumstances where the department had not contested the matter during the initial proceedings.
In a separate matter, the court held that excess salary paid to a government employee due to an error in pay fixation by the employer cannot be recovered from the employee’s retirement benefits if the mistake is identified and sought to be corrected after an unreasonable delay. This ruling came in Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590), where Justice Manish Kumar Nigam directed the refund of Rs. 11,51,840/- that had been deducted from the retiral dues of a retired Head Constable (Driver), along with 7% simple interest. The court noted that the respondent authorities did not dispute that the petitioner bore no responsibility for the erroneous pay fixation. According to the respondents, the incorrect fixation of salary occurred in 2008, and the attempt to recover the excess was made in 2025—after a lapse of 17 years. The court concluded that such delayed recovery, especially when the employee played no role in the error, was unjust and not permissible under the principles of equity and laches.
The court’s reasoning in both cases underscored a protective approach toward public servants against procedural unfairness and delayed administrative actions. In the first instance, it reinforced the evidentiary burden on the state when alleging deficiencies in an employee’s record. In the second, it prevented the state from benefiting from its own administrative lethargy by allowing recovery of dues long after the employee had retired and relied on the finality of their settlement. The judgments collectively affirm that administrative authorities must act with diligence and correctness, and cannot shift the consequences of their errors or omissions onto employees years later.
Both rulings were delivered during the week of August 17 to August 23, 2026, and form part of the Allahabad High Court’s reported orders and judgments for that period. The decisions reflect a consistent judicial stance on fairness in service matters, particularly where procedural lapses or temporal delays prejudice the rights of government employees.