Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is permissible if the employee had provided an undertaking to refund any excess payment, distinguishing such cases from the general prohibition against recovery established in Rafiq Masih.

O R D E R (oral)

By Hon’ble Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J)

Shri Lalji Kushwah leanred counsel for the applicant, Ms. Nidhi Sonker proxy counsel for Shri Manish Verma for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Vijay Tripathi for respondent No. 4 are present.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 states that the controversy involved in this OA is identical to the facts of OA No. 81/2022 decided by this Bench on 03.07.2023. He prays that this case may also be disposed of on the same footing as in aforementioned OA.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. We have perused the record of this case and find that this same is similar to the 81/2022 decided by this Bench on 03.07.2023 in which following order was passed:-

PIYUSH CHANDRA DD522c3CRFa271 a oiN Heg 6c1 5 xa: Ai 5 5 ie0t staC N f 18 oP9l= 843 eDny 0 D2I 8, c : RcN s FcdS I5 Ai, 1d g a= 0 RO f59n mU7 5 e1ee=0 dt acddP t6 5a h7 dc 3 3E rb e1 e1 2 8yR P b rc a1 f 90 crS VP ue a2c9O eI td d 6Y hb1 r8 eN d soeeU 0 s i7 r0A 2 oS 8 h 48 o5L n1 ,H 20 f4 , : 4 S f f t0T 27C d hb E4 0= 64 i0H sR 2,8 0b A , 4I dC2 2 APN .o1 7f N 3Lo c0 5D c .=N 0us,a eR Pt mUP5 9aA I9 7h Ml Y eCb bo nUBo8 2n tSEda 0e e H8 2R= =3 4 =6 a

“ uD pu or ni n thg e t jh ue d gc mou enrs tse oo ff v h are ia or uin sg S, ut bh -e o ra dp inp ali tc ea cn ot uh rta ss a sre wlie ed ll as of the High Court. We have considered the facts and judgment referred by the applicant in entirety, and considered the parts that are relevant to the instant O.A. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of Rafiq Masih (Supra), which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has distinguished the same in the case of High court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, wherein it has been held that the principle enunciated in proposition (ii) of Rafiq Masih (Supra)‟s case 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 payment option for pension and he is bound by the undertaking. In this case, the applicant was holding the post of Principal Scientist a Group „A‟ rank. The respondent bank has not initiated to recover any government dues from the pension but it is the case of double payment of retirement gratuity and CVP which had arisen on account of mistake committed by the SBI bank.

5. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the applicant as we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents. As such the OA is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.