Recovery of excess salary payments from a retired employee caused by departmental errors is impermissible in law if the employee was not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation, as it is arbitrary, inequitable, and causes undue hardship.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

Prayer

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no. 3 and directing the respondents to release the pension and other retiral benefits along with interest of 24% per annum.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner is a retired government employee who served in the Indian Army from 22.03.1985 to 31.08.2005 and thereafter joined the Sainik & Ardh Sainik Welfare Department, Haryana as a Clerk on 02.05.2006. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 05.01.2021 and retired on 31.08.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

3. Upon retirement, the petitioner became entitled to pensionary benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and commutation. No departmental inquiry or proceedings were pending against him at the time of retirement.

4. The respondents did not release the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. Instead, a show cause notice dated 30.08.2024 was issued proposing recovery of ₹4,38,457/- allegedly on account of excess payment.

5. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice denying any misrepresentation or fraud on his part and contending that the alleged excess payment, if any, was not attributable to him. However, the respondents proceeded to deny the petitioner’s claim for release of pensionary benefits.

6. Hence, this petition.

Contentions

On the behalf of petitioner

7. Learned counsel contends that the impugned show cause notice proposing recovery of ₹4,38,457/- and the consequent withholding of retiral benefits are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of law, particularly as the petitioner has already retired from service.

8. It is argued that the petitioner, being a Class-III employee, did not commit any fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts at any stage, and therefore any alleged excess payment, if made, was solely on account of an error attributable to the respondent-department, while further submitting that in the absence of any misconduct or pending disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have no authority in law to withhold pension, gratuity, leave encashment, or other retiral dues of the petitioner.

9. It is further contended that recovery from a retired employee is impermissible in law, especially where the alleged excess payment pertains to a period long prior to retirement and was not obtained by any wrongful act of the employee. Learned counsel relies on settled judicial precedents to argue that recovery from retired employees or employees nearing retirement is inequitable and legally unsustainable, particularly when such recovery would cause undue hardship.

10. Counsel further argues that the withholding of retiral benefits, which are a statutory right of the petitioner, amounts to an unjust deprivation of property and livelihood, and is thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

On behalf of the Respondents

11. The written statement dated 11.09.2025 has been filed by Mr. Sanjay Joon, Director General on behalf of respondents no, 1 to 4, whereby it is contended that while the petitioner was serving as Clerk at District Sainik and Ardh Sainik Welfare Office, Narnaul, his pay was erroneously fixed vide Memo dated 28.02.2018 by the then District Sainik and Ardh Sainik Welfare Officer, Lt. Col. Sarita Yadav. It is argued that the said officer was not the competent authority to fix or revise the petitioner’s pay, as such power vests exclu