The central legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature and significance of an undertaking given by an employee, particularly in the context of repayment or recovery of excess amounts, as evidenced by relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses (B) and (C) as under :

“B. By Writ of Certiorari or by appropriate like nature or by appropriate orders and directions, the impugned order dated 4-6-2018 passed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner in regards to Recovery of excess amount may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By issuance of appropriate Writ like nature or by appropriate orders and directions, the respondent No. 2 to 5 kindly be directed to refund excess recovered amount, with 8% interest to the petitioner and for that purpose this Hon’ble High Court may kindly be passed necessary orders, for that purpose this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate orders.”

3. The petitioner has retired as a graded headmaster on 31-5-2018. He joined on 14-3-1984. He was a beneficiary of the 5th pay commission recommendations given effect to from 1-1-1996. Admittedly, while calculating his pay scale, there was a slight mistake and as a consequence of which, the petitioner earned excess amount during the period of the applicability of the 5th pay commission recommendations. Within 4 days of his superannuation, the employer calculated his entire legal dues and the excess amount was calculated. An amount of Rs. 01,95,048/- was quantified as being excess pay earned by the petitioner. Rs. 23,738/- was towards the increment which he was paid under the belief that he has passed his MS-CIT computer examination. The petitioner submits that he would not claim refund of this amount. He however, has preferred this petition for seeking repayment of Rs. 01,95,048/- which the employer has deducted from his retiral benefits while calculating them and he has been paid the residual amounts. He has also been receiving the pension ever since his retirement.

4. The learned advocate representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4-employer points out that a specific undertaking was taken from the petitioner on 15-5-2018, vide which he agreed for repayment or recovery of such amounts which may have been inadvertently paid in excess to him. He has also executed another undertaking to repay the amount or agree for a recovery, if it is noticed at the time of his retirement that he has drawn excess pay. Though there is no date on the printed form, we find ‘2019’ as a part of the printed form which indicates that this form at page No. 42 may have been prepared in 2019. As such, though we may ignore this undated undertaking, we would not ignore the undertaking signed by the petitioner on 15-5-2018 in which he has added a sentence in handwriting as ^es U;k;ky;kps fudkykps vf/ku jkgwu---------^ . This sentence is written before he had approached this Court and it also indicates that he was aware that he must have received excess amounts and hence had the intention of challenging such recovery. Nevertheless, this undertaking is issued prior to his superannuation and the recovery has been caused within 4 days from the date of his superannuation.

5. The employer has entered an affidavit in reply dated 10-8-2020. It is reiterated that the undertaking was taken from the petitioner so as to ensure that any wrong payment made to him in excess of what he was entitled to, should not be permitted to be taken from the State Exchequer. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, 2016 AIR SCW 3523, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph No. 11 as under :

“11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay-scale. He is bound by the undertaking.”