The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of excess payment and interest is permissible based on the written undertakings given by the employee, with the recovery being limited to the quantum and nature of the amount promised to be refunded in the undertaking.

ORDER SHEEL NAGU, J. : – PROLOGUE The present intra Court appeal filed under section 2(i) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 22-2-2021 passed in WP 11449/2021 by the learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution dismissing the petition in question by which challenge was made to the order dated 28-7-2020 by which the employer directed recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,07,913/- (the principal amount of excess payment of Rs. 57,419 + interest of Rs. 50,494/- over the principal amount), which has been paid in excess during the period from July, 2009 to July, 2018 to petitioner/a Vanrakshak (Class III employee) when wrong fixation was made of increment in 2011 and also due to wrong fixation of pay in 2017.

SUBMISSIONS 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/appellant submits by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334 that the case of petitioner, who is a serving Class III employee, is covered by the ratio laid down in the said Apex Court decision in Para 18, which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience : –

“18. 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 to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law : (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”

2.1 On the basis of aforesaid decision of Rafiq Masih (supra), learned counsel for petitioner/appellant submits that there was no misrepresentation made by petitioner and the wrong fixation of increment in 2011 and wrong fixation of salary in 2017 were for reasons not attributed to petitioner but solely to the employer. Thus, learned counsel for petitioner/appellant urges that the writ Court committed error in rejecting the writ petition.

2.2 Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referring to reply to the writ petition submits that at the time of fixation of increment in 2011 and as well as fixation of salary in 2017, petitioner had furnished written undertaking that in case it is found that the benefit extended is in excess of the due amount then the same can be recovered from the petitioner or in her absence from her legal heirs. These written undertakings have been signed by petitioner in 2009 and 2017 which are on record as Annexure R/1 accompanying the reply of State in WP.

2.3 Learned Single Bench has held that in view of undertakings and the subsequent decision of Apex Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523, the earlier decision of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been distinguished by holding that the ratio laid down by Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply to cases of recovery from retired employee who had submitted written undertaking promising to return the excess amount as and when the same is found t