The petitioner's undertaking at the time of payment bound him to refund any excess payment detected later, even after retirement.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 24.2.2022 (Annexure P-1), the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

2. Vide the impugned Order, the Respondents have ordered for recovery of certain excess amount paid to the Petitioner in the course of settlement of his retiral dues.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the Petitioner stood retired from service under the Respondents with effect from 30.9.2021. He was holding the post of Dresser which is a Class-IV post. Some of the retiral dues of the Petitioner were paid to him somewhere in November, 2021. Respondents, meanwhile, have passed the impugned Order of recovery holding that the Petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.9,828/- on account of certain excess payment made towards the leave encashment and that the said excess payment was on the ground of erroneous calculation being made by the Respondents.

4. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “State of Punjab and Ors. etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. [2015 AIR SCW 501]”, learned Counsel for Petitioner assails the impugned Order of recovery stating that since the Petitioner already stands retired from service, the recovery proceeding could not have been initiated by Respondents and secondly the Petitioner is a Class-IV post holder working on the post of Dresser and on that ground also the Respondents could not have initiated the recovery proceeding.

5. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the Judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable in the instant case, for the reason that it is not a belated recovery which is being made by Respondents. In-fact, it is a case where the payment was made to the Petitioner just a couple of months back and immediately in the course of further settlement of his retiral dues it was detected that certain excess payment has been made to the Petitioner and he has been asked to refund the said amount received by him as excess payment.

6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate in support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Others v. Jagdev Singh [2016 (14) SCC 267] wherein under similar set of facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since the Petitioner is bound by the undertaking that he had given at the time of payment of retiral dues, he cannot be permitted to reagitate the same at this juncture.

7. In the instant case also from the factual matrix as it’s reflected from the pleadings itself, the Petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 30.9.2021. The part payment of his retiral dues including the leave encashment was made on 17.11.2021 and in just a less than about two months’ time, the impugned Order of recovery has been passed on 24.2.2022. It is not a case where the recovery is being made so far as any excess payment that was made to the Petitioner while he was in service. It is in-fact a case where the excess payment has been made post retirement in the course of settlement of his retiral dues and therefore the undertaking which the Petitioner has given at the time of settlement of his retiral dues would not permit him to challenge the recovery Order unless there is a mala fide or it is in respect of any recovery of excess payment that was made long back while he was in service.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsels appearing for the parties, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the Judgment cited by learned Deputy Government Advocate in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph- 11, dealing with the Judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and distinguishing the said Judgment, has held 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 w