ORDER ON BOARD

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order/notice of recovery dated 16.06.2025 seeking following reliefs :-

“10.1 Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and quash the impugned Recovery order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No.7, whereby the amount of Rs.7,58,677/- has been inserted as recoverable from the Petitioner against the excess payment paid to the petitioner by the Respondents, in the interest of justice.

10.2 Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to release all the retiral dues of the Petitioner including GPF, GIS, Amount of Leave Encashment, Gratuity etc. which has been withheld by the Respondents despite the fact that the Petitioner has already been retired from her services on 30.06.2025, in furtherance of justice.

10.3 Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the representation (s) submitted by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Grant any other relief (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working as Headmaster Primary School under the respondents which is a Class- III post. After attaining the age of superannuation, she retired from service on 30.07.2025. Respondents have issued an order/notice dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) just few days before retirement of petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,58,677/- on the ground that excess payment is made to petitioner due to wrong pay fixation. Excess amount is paid for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.06.2018. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 recovery of excess payment from the petitioner/Class-III employee is not permissible. He also contended that from the face of the order it is apparent that excess payment is not made to petitioner because of her misrepresentation or any fraud played by petitioner to the respondent- department. Recovery of amount if paid in excess towards salary cannot be made from her. Therefore, action on the part of respondent- department in deducting the amount as mentioned towards excess payment is per se illegal and arbitrary.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that from order Annexure P-1 it is apparent that excess payment has been made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.06.2018 and petitioner has also given undertaking for recovery of amount, if paid in excess to petitioner. He contended that the case of respondent is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttrakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs. State Of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475, Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs. The Govt. Of India & Ors reported in 2006 (11) SCC 709

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition.

5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that petitioner was holding the post of Headmaster Primary School, which is Class-III post, she was paid excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.06.2018. It is not the case of respondents that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent-department.

6. In case of Rafiq Masih (su