Order on Board

16/04/2025

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is retired from the post of Head Clerk in the establishment of respondent Department, questioning the recovery letter dated 01/06/2023 stating that excess payment was made to the petitioner for the period commencing 01/01/2086 to 28/02/2023.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Class-III employee and the recovery letter which has been issued by the respondent authorities is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when the excess payment was come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, the recovery order has been passed and there is no illegality in issuance of the recovery letter.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra)

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra)

has issued guidelines which reads as under :-

“10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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.

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.”

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding Class-III post and the recovery letter as stated above has been issued by the respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment has wrongly been made to the petitioner.

7. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) is that the recovery from the Class- III employee is not permissible stating excess payment of salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any fraud to receive the excess salary. The same view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack &

Others (decided in SLP (C) No. 5918/2024 on 04/04/2025).

8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner by the respondent authorities is hereby quashed.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.