For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Subramani

For Respondent(s): MR. V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.07.2022, whereby consequent to the reduction in petitioner’s Grade Pay from Rs.4,400/- to Rs.2,800/- a sum of Rs.1,46,336/- was found to be due and the same was sought to be recovered from his retirement benefit. The same is challenged by the petitioner as being illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.

Petitioner served as a Time Keeper/Skilled Assistant Grade II in Public Works Department and retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2015 as per the order of 5th respondent dated 29.10.2015. Petitioner would submit that on the date of his superannuation, he had completed 35 years and 10 months of continuous service.

It is submitted that during the course of his employment, inasmuch as the posts held by the petitioner did not provide any avenue for promotion, he was also paid the higher grade of pay at Rs.4,400/- instead of Rs.2,800/- during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.10.2015. Petitioner would further submit that he is a Group-D employer and that the impugned order seeking recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. made in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 (White Washer case).

Learned counsel for respondents would submit that even at the time when the Grade Pay was re-fixed, it was indicated that in case there is any error in refixation, the same would be liable to be recovered from his salary. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “,e;j Cjpa eph;zaj;jhy; Vw;gLk; epYit bjhif01/4/2013 Kjy; bgw jFjpa[ilath; vd;Wk; gpw;fhyj;jpy; ,e;j Cjpa eph;zak; jtW vd bjhpathpd; mj;bjhif Cjpaj;jpy; KGtJk; gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gLk; vdt[k; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”

Learned Additional Government Pleader would place reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh, made in Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006, and submit that this is one of those cases in which reliance on White Washer’s case may be misplaced, inasmuch as petitioner had also agreed to recovery of the excess pay, due to erroneous fixation of Grade Pay vide letter dated 26.11.2015.

In the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh, which dealt with the recovery sought from the Additional Civil Judge, as a matter of fact, it was found that even when the respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. It was thus found that the respondent therein was placed on notice for any payment found to be made in excess would be required to be refund. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:

“8. The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the Respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically admitted. Subsequently, when the rules were revised and notified on 7 May 2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the Respondent. On 18 February 2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking.

9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be a