The law prohibits recovery of excess payments made over five years earlier, as reaffirmed in Rafiq Masih.

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 839/2025, CM APPLs. 4121/2025, 4122/2025 &

4123/2025 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Adv.

versus NARESH VERMA .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

ORDER (ORAL)

% 22.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This is yet another case covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih , [(2015) 4 SCC 334] one of the many of which clog the docket of this Court on a daily basis.

2. We are frankly at a loss as to why the executive authorities are not able to come to terms with the judgment in Rafiq Masih rendered over a decade ago in 2014. It is clear, from the number of petitions, covered by Rafiq Masih, with which we are plagued day after day, that the decision is not palatable to the executive. It is time, however,

W.P.(C) 839/2025 Page 1 of 7

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT

that the executives learn to accept the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which is a constitutional mandate not only under Article 141 but also under Article 144.

3. Nonetheless, these petitions continue to be filed and we continue to have to pass orders disposing them off.

4. The respondent joined the services of the New Delhi Municipal Council, [“NDMC”, hereinafter] as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 10 July 1991.He was promoted as Executive Engineer and regularized in the said post on 13 March 2008. He was subsequently promoted as Superintendent Engineer with effect from 22 August 2014. An earlier order dated 6 April 2010 whereby the respondents’ pay had been fixed with effect from 28 August 2009 was superseded by the respondents by an order passed nearly ten years thereafter on 25 March 2019.This latter order sought to refix the pay of the respondent, fixed by order dated 6 April 2010. Needless to say, this refixation was downward, with the scale of ₹ 53820/- p.m. with grade pay of ₹ 8900/-,fixed by order dated 26 April 2010,being revised to ₹ 51530/- p.m. with grade pay of ₹ 6900/-. 5. On the basis of the said refixation, the petitioner also chose to effect recoveries, by order dated 25 March 2019, of the alleged over payment made by the respondent, consequent on the order dated 6 April 2010. The order dated 25 March 2019 reads thus:

“Emp. Code No. 268426

W.P.(C) 839/2025 Page 2 of 7

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT

Supvr. No. 070220 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALIKA KENDRA: NEW DELHI ELECT. ESTT. UNIT-1 No.SO.(Estt.)/57/EA-VIII Dated:25/3/19 OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of office order no. 6575/SA-III(SO(Estt)/2017 dt. 28.12.17, the office order no. 1870/SA-III dt. 1.4.11 issued earlier is withdrawn and fixation of pay in the revised pay structure on promotion after 1.1.06 under Rule 13(1) of the CCS(RP) Rules 2008 and DTL (RP) Rules, 2009 regulates fixation of pay of employees on promotion on or after 01.01.2006. As per this provision, the pay on promotion is to be fixed by granting one increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the Pay Band and the existing Grade Pay rounded off to the next multiple of 10 or minimum Pay band. Accordingly, the pay of Sh. Naresh Verma, SE(E) after granting the 2^nd TBPS in the scale of ₹ 37400-67000 + ₹ 8900/- Grade pay is re- fixed in supersession of o.o. no. 768/EE-

I/EA-1 dt. 6.4.10 is as under: