IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

222 Date of decision: 10.11.2025 Sukhvir Singh Dalal .....Petitioner VERSUS Managing Director DHBVN and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Amarjeet Beniwal, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned re-fixation of pay dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P-3) and the consequential recovery order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹57,537/-, with a further prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release all retiral benefits as per the last pay drawn by the petitioner prior to the impugned re-

fixation.

2. Briefly the facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Draftsman with the respondent-Department on 11.08.1981 and rose to the post of Chief Draftsman before retiring on 30.11.2017 after rendering over 36 years of unblemished service. Upon his promotion to the post of CHD w.e.f. 19.06.2015, his pay was fixed in accordance with the Government of Haryana letter dated 28.08.2014, adopted by the DHBVN. The petitioner drew this pay until his retirement. After retirement, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P-3) re- fixing his pay w.e.f. 01.07.2015, alleging that an increment was erroneously granted upon promotion, contrary to Government Order dated 08.04.2010. Consequently, vide order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-4), a recovery of ₹57,537/- was ordered from his retiral benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2017 after rendering unblemished service for over 36 years. It is contended that the impugned re-fixation of pay and the consequential recovery of ₹57,537/- from his retiral benefits were effected without any notice or opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that that the recovery is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which categorically bars recovery from retired employees. It is further asserted that the petitioner never gave any valid undertaking to authorize such recovery, and the alleged undertakings, even if existent, are general in nature or obtained under duress post-retirement, and cannot override the equitable protection afforded to retirees.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously fixed by granting an inadmissible increment upon promotion, as per Government Order dated 08.04.2010. He submits that the petitioner had given specific undertakings, including one post-retirement on 06.04.2018 (Annexure R-3), agreeing unconditionally to the recovery of any excess payment. Placing heavy reliance on the judgment in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, he contends that where an undertaking is given, the employee is bound by it and the principles in Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), where it was held that recovery from retired employees is impermissible. The Court while emphasizing that such recovery causes undue hardship and is inequitable laid down the following principles:

"(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, whe