230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2026 RAKESH BHANDARI AND OTHERS ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate with Mr. Charambir Singh, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rashmeen Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.5.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the letters/orders/actions of the respondents (Annexures P-1 to P-9), namely: 08.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) amounting to ₹ ₹

59,942/-, 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) amounting to 56,097/-, 21.06.2018 ₹

(Annexure P-3) amounting to 94,058/-, 18.09.2018 (Annexure P-4)

₹

amounting to 81,761/-, 05.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) amounting to ₹ ₹

82,445/-, 10.08.2018 (Annexure P-6) amounting to 47,525/-, 21.06.2018 ₹

(Annexure P-7) amounting to 77,297/-, 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-8)

₹

amounting to 61,633/-, and 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-9) amounting to ₹

62,773/-, whereby illegal recoveries have been effected from the retiral benefits of the petitioners after their retirement, without their knowledge and due to wilful default on the part of the respondents.

The said action of the respondents is assailed as patently illegal, perverse, arbitrary, cryptic, discriminatory, violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and thus unsustainable in the eyes of law. A writ of Mandamus is further sought directing the respondents to refund the amounts recovered vide Annexures P-1 to P-9, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of recovery till actual realization.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners, who served under respondent No.5 on Class-III posts, have since retired, and the impugned recoveries have been effected from their retiral dues. Referring to the reply dated 22.06.2022 filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 4, he submits that in paragraph 3 thereof, it is stated that the recoveries were initiated on account of excess payments detected during an audit conducted for the period from April 1997 to March 2003, whereas all the petitioners retired between the years 2012 and

2020.

3. The counsel further submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(4) SCC 334. The impugned recoveries are legally impermissible, firstly, because no recovery from retired Class-III and Class-IV employees is permissible; and secondly, because the recoveries have been effected without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud at the time the alleged excess payments were made.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the recoveries were made from the salary of the petitioners and not from their pensionary benefits, as is evident from the comparative chart furnished in paragraph 4 of the written statement. On this premise, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned State counsel submits that some recoveries were made in part and certain recoveries were effected beyond one year from the date of retirement. It is contended that the case of the petitioners does not strictly fall within the parameters laid down in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Annexures P-1 to P-9 unequivocally demonstrate that the recoveries were made from the retiral dues of the petitioners. It is further contended that even if petitioner No.2 (Ashwani Bhan) and petitioner No.8 (Gurinder Kumar) are excluded, the