251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.01.2026 SAROJ BALA ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Virender K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate and Ms. Nisha Grover, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.2 and impugned order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.3 whereby recovery of Rs.5,22,264/- has been made from the Gratuity of the petitioner without serving any Show Cause Notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, after her retirement from service on 29.02.2020. Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of recovery i.e. Rs.5,22,264/- made from the Gratuity of the petitioner along with interest thereon @ 12 % p.a.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioner entered into service as Clerk in respondent-Market Committee in the year 1982 and she retired from service on 29.02.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the eve of her retirement, there was no departmental or criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. Vide the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), an amount of Rs.5,22,264/- was deducted from the Gratuity of the petitioner. The recovery from the gratuity post retirement is not permissible in terms of settled law by State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih, 2015(1) SCT 195 Jasgdish Prashad Singh Vs. State of Bihar 2024 AIR SC 3950 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 as well as instruction dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-6).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submit that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and it was found that the vouchers regarding material purchased, mentioned at Serial No.32, 33 and 34 were missing. The purchase of this material by the Market Committee was made during the period when the petitioner was serving as Incharge Secretary. During the tenure of the petitioner, the Market Committee has suffered a financial loss of Rs.5,22,264/- in view of which the said recovery was made.

4 However, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 could not controvert the fact that the recovery was made from the Gratuity of the petitioner after her retirement.

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

6. The petitioner retired on 29.02.2020 whereas the impugned order of recovery were passed on 20.09.2024 and 07.11.2024 (Annexure P- 4 and P-5), respectively. The issue of effecting recovery from pension after retirement has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on multiple occasions. Rafiq Masih’ case (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that recovery from retired employees is impermissible in law. Speaking through Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, the following was observed:

“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 e