1. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 6.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6835/2014, vide which appellant's claim for not making any recovery from the amount of gratuity payable to her on death of her husband, has been turned down by the learned Single Judge on the ground that appellant's husband was a Class-II employee and, therefore, protection extended to the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV group in the case of State of Punjab and ors. v. Rafiq Masih, as reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 is not available.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that recovery has been made under two heads. An amount of Rs. 1,18,400/- is recovered on account of certain advances, which were credited in the account of her husband during his life time and for which adjustment vouchers could not be filed by her husband before his death. It is also submitted that further a sum of Rs. 72,894/- is recovered on account of excess payment made to the husband of the appellant while he was in service due to erroneous pay fixation alongwith interest on the principal amount of Rs. 65,084/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Saroj Mewari v. State of M.P. and ors. (W.P. 14862/20136) decided on 16.4.2014.

4. It is submitted that as far as adjustment of advance is concerned, there was no opportunity of hearing to the appellant and, therefore, in absence of any opportunity of hearing or any inquiry being conducted in the matter, such advance could not have been adjusted. It is also submitted that in case of Rafiq Masih (supra), there is mention of certain clauses in para 18 of said judgment, wherein recoveries by the employers, have been declared to 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.

5. It is submitted that Clause-II, which forbids recovery from the retired employees, will cover the case of the appellant, inasmuch as retirement, results in termination of master-servant relationship so also upon death of her husband master-servant relationship between State and her husband came to an end, and, therefore, no recovery on account of excess payment of salary could have been made and atleast that amount of Rs. 72,894/- needs to be set aside.

6. Learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that in fact in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and ors. as reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 it has been settled that it is tax payers money and there cannot be any undue enrichment at the cost of tax payers money. Such kind of benevolence cannot be extended in favour of the appellant. It is also submitted that through E-payment, amounts of advances were directly credited in the account of appellant's husband and, therefore, he was duty bound to furnish vouchers and failure to furnish vouchers cannot be condoned so to cause loss to the public exchequer.

7. The fact of the matter is that there is no undertaking on record to show that recovery has been made in regard to excess payment of salary as is reflected from copy of service book enclosed as Annexure R/5 in terms of any undertaking given by the husband of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh as reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267. Since no notice was given prior to recovery, such recovery is impermissible. This recovery is on account of pay fixation, which was made w.e.f 1.7.2009 and therefore, respondents were duty bound to produce a copy of undertaking. Therefore, as far as amount of recovery of excess payment of salary is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, it will be covered by exception carved out in para 18(ii) of