The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing before passing orders involving civil consequences and monetary impact on the employee.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.5.2021 (Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.5 relating to recovery of amount of Rs.6,59,139.00 from his post retiral benefits/pension.

3. This Court has passed order dated 28.7.2021 as under:-

"Heard Sri Sajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This Court vide order dated 14.7.2021 granted ten days' time to State to seek complete instructions.

Today, learned Standing Counsel has again requested some more time to seek instructions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed urgency in the matter by submitting that this is a case wherein the substantial amount have been recovered from the petitioner after his retirement more so without providing any opportunity of hearing to that effect. He has also submitted that the petitioner being Class-III employee may not be subjected to the impugned action in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

Prima facie, the impugned order appears to be unwarranted and against the dictum of Hon'ble the Apex Court in re: Rafiq Masih (supra) but since one more opportunity has been sought by the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, a week's and no more time is granted to State to seek complete instructions in the matter.

List this case on 4.8.2021 as fresh.

On the next date, the writ petition may be decided finally on the basis of instructions and material available on record."

4. Learned Standing Counsel has produced copy of instructions provided to him wherein it has been indicated that at the time of getting benefit, the petitioner had given undertaking that if any excess amount is paid to him, the same may be recovered. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, such recovery can be made in terms of paragraphs 8 & 11 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the convenience paragraphs 8 & 11 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below:-

"8. The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by the respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically admitted [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 608 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 33]. Subsequently, when the Rules were revised and notified on 7-5-2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the respondent. On 18-2-2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking.

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."

5. On being confronted as to how the sum of Rs.6,59,139.00 has been paid excess to the petitioner inasmuch as the detail of this excess amount allegedly being paid to the petitioner is not indicated in the impugned order dated 10.5.2021, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that detailed instructions so received to him, no such explanation has been given, however, he may obtain further instructions, if this Court provides some more time.

6. On being further confronted as to whether any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 10.5.2021 by/