JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2 directing to recover an amount of Rs. 93,528/- from the pension of the petitioner, who is retired on 31.03.2005. Thus, the aforesaid recovery order has been passed after a period of ten (10) years putting the petitioner, who is a senior citizen in legal jeopardy, constraining him to file this writ petition that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to him.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Jani for the petitioner has submitted that such recovery is impermissible in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015(4) SCC 334 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17.07.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1400 of 2019.

2.1. He has submitted that the impugned action is also in violation of principles of natural justice since the respondent authorities has straightway affected the recovery, without giving any notice to the petitioner, who is retired ten (10) years before. He has submitted that already an amount of Rs. 49,000/- was recovered and remaining amount was unrecovered due to the interim order passed by this court. He has submitted that thus, the amount of Rs. 49,000/- is required to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 18%, as the same is illegally recovered.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ishan Joshi has submitted that the recovery was affected due to the re-fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner from 1992. However, he is unable to dispute that the aforesaid order is passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. This is a classic case of abuse of power by the respondent authority by affecting recovery from the retired person, after ten (10) years of his retirement and straightway reducing his pension by ordering recovery without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. The respondents have taken shelter under the undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of fixation of pay-scale when the petitioner was serving as well as the undertaking given by the petitioner and his son on 17.08.2012.

6. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 17.07.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1400 of 2019. The Division Bench after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) SCC 334 as well as the judgment cited by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, while dealing with the similar issue has observed thus:

"5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the context of the finding of the learned Single Judge about recovery ordered to be initiated from the respondent, a Class-III employee, principles laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) were applied by learned Single Judge in the order impugned, which read as under:

"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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following new 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) Rec