Point of Law: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had consistently taken a view that in respect of the retired employees as well as Group3 and 4 employees, excess payment already paid cannot be recovered considering the financial constraint of these employees as well as the retired employees

JUDGMENT :

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery notice dated 26.8.2004 and 11.2.2009 (contained as Annexure Nos.1 and 3 to the writ petition) asking the petitioner to pay Rs.2,13,838/- as an excess payment of GPF to the petitioner;

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to initiate any coercive measure against the petitioner till the representation dated 11.09.2004 is decided and considered by speaking and reasoned order passed by the respondent no.4;

(iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to release the 10% balance amount of GPF to the petitioner forthwith."

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a retired employee of the respondents and he retired on 30.04.2004 on the post of Sub-Inspector of Motor Transport while he was working under the control of Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur. Petitioner was provided GPF Account No. PU 72897. The GPF contribution of the petitioner has regularly been deducted by the respondents since 1964. After his retirement, the petitioner has been paid GPF amount to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said payment was made only up to 90% gratuity/GPF and 10% was to be paid after final settlement. Since the petitioner retired on 30.04.2004, and as such, the petitioner has moved a representation on 03.07.2004 to the respondent authorities to release his 10% of balance GPF amount. In pursuance of the said representation, the respondents vide order dated 26.08.2004 informed the petitioner that he has been paid excess amount of GPF to the tune of Rs.2,13,838/-. In pursuance of the said order dated 26.08.2004, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 11.09.2004 by registered post as well as by hand before the respondent no.4 requesting therein to calculate the GPF amount as per details mentioned in the said representation. The said representation has not been decided by the respondent no.4 and the same is still pending consideration. On 04.10.2004, the respondents have informed the petitioner that Rs.3606/- has been paid to him by Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh. In reply to the said notice dated 04.10.2004, the petitioner has submitted a reply dated 03.11.2004 mentioning all the facts. After sleeping over the matte for almost 5 years, the respondent no.4 has illegally issued the impugned demand notice dated 11.02.2009 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,13,838/- in pursuance of the order dated 26.08.2004, hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has superannuated on 30.04.2004 on the post of Sub Inspector. After his retirement, firstly a demand notice dated 26.08.2004 has been issued and, thereafter, the impugned notice dated 11.02.2009 has been issued to the petitioner informing him to deposit Rs.2,13,838/- as excess amount. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering petitioner's reply, an order has been passed directing recovery to be made from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud practiced by the petitioner in the matter. For the excess payment on the default of the department, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner, hence, the impugned demand notice is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and unreasonable on the part of the respondents and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Submission is that after petitioner superannuated, no recovery could have been effected in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 4 SCC 334.

4. Learned Standing Counsel tried to support the impugned order by drawing attention to various Government orders, however could not dispute the current legal positi