ORDER

Vinay Saraf, J. -- 1. The appellant has preferred the instant intra Court appeal being dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed to the extent that the recovery of principal amount component was upheld, whereas the interest component was quashed.

2. With the consent of the parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal of the case.

3. The short facts of the case are that the husband of the appellant late Shri Pramod Kumar Mehto was holding the post of Head Constable and posted in the office of Director General of Police, Range Bhopal (Urban) Bhopal. The husband of the appellant died on 22.12.2018 due to illness and when his widow i.e. the present appellant applied for payment of death benefits and family pension etc., at the time of issuance of PPO dated 3.2.2021, the respondent department initiated recovery of Rs.21,69,036/- comprising Rs. 14,27,155/- towards principal recoverable amount and Rs.7,41,881/- towards interest on the basis of reassessment of the salary paid to the deceased husband of the appellant. The appellant challenged the action of the respondent department in WP No.25666/2023, which was dismissed by order dated 3.7.2024 therefore, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the action of recovery of amount Rs.21,69,036/- by the respondent department on the ground that the deceased husband of the appellant was wrongly paid the amount is erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law that no such amount can be recovered either at the time of superannuation of the employee or from the amount payable to the legal heirs of the employee. He further submits that due to prolonged ailment of late Shri Pramod Kumar Mehto before he succumbed to the illness on 22.12.2018, the period of 1007 days was declared to be leave without pay on 13.2.2018 and the department has initiated the recovery of the amount of salary paid to the deceased during the said period. He further submits that the second ground of recovery was communicated by the department that the husband of the appellant was punished in a departmental enquiry with reduction of one increment with cumulative effect, but the department kept on making payment to him with increased increment without implementation of the order of punishment dated 13.12.2011. He further submits that the alleged erroneous payment was not made to the deceased husband of the appellant on account of any misrepresentation or miscommunication by the employee and he was not liable for alleged erroneous payment. He further submits that after the death of the employee, the said amount cannot be recovered from the death benefits payable to the widow of the employee and, therefore, the action of the respondent department is contrary to the settled position of law. He relied on the judgment of apex Court delivered in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the apex Court has held that the recovery from the retired or deceased employee from pensionary benefits is bad in law. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under :

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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few 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 iss