IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

117 CWP-37255-2025 Date of Decision: December 12, 2025 Dharamvir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Registrar Cooperative Societies Panchkula and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Sparsh Chhibber, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Panghal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter of recovery of gratuity of amount of Rs.3,33,132/- dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 vide which respondent No.3 ordered to recover the excessive gratuity amount without any misrepresentation or fault on the part of petitioner. Further it is prayed for staying the operation of order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-1)

and letter dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner superannuated from the service of respondent No.3-Bank as Senior Account Officer on 31.12.2024 after serving for more than three decades. To the utter surprise after the retirement of petitioner, the respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) to petitioner for depositing the amount of Rs.3,33,132/- in lieu of excess payment of gratuity amount. On 29.10.2025 respondent No.3 again send a reminder (Annexure P-2) to petitioner to deposit the amount in question. Learned counsel further submits that there was no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner for the excess payment. Learned counsel further submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih 2015(1) SCT 195 and that the impugned recovery is in direct violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reliance is also placed on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2024 AIR Supreme Court 3950 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the fact that there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in receiving the alleged excess amount and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file with their able assistance. It transpires that the petitioner retired from the service of the respondent-Bank on 31.12.2024, and thereafter a recovery notice dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) was issued, followed by a reminder dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-2), despite there being no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in obtaining the alleged excess payment.

5. The question regarding, recovering of excess payment is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) and the relevant extract reads as under:-

12. “….It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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 i