Parmar Naran Bhai Rupa Bhai & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6065 Del

Delhi High Court

Parmar Naran Bhai Rupa Bhai & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                    $~117
                    *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +       W.P.(C) 12560/2024 & CM APPL. 52230/2024

                            PARMAR NARAN BHAI
                            RUPA BHAI & ORS.                      .....Petitioners
                                          Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava,
                                          Mr. Satyaarth Sinha and Ms. Shradha
                                          Mewati, Advs.

                                                versus

                            UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  .....Respondents
                                          Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC
                                          Mr. Jitendra Gautam, CRPF/RAF

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
                                                ORDER (ORAL)

                    %                             09.12.2025

                    C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 9 August 2024 issued on the basis of an audit objection whereunder various amounts were directed to be recovered from the petitioners as having been overpaid to them during the year 2015-18.

2. The recovery is in the teeth of categories (i) and (iii) of para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq

Masih1 which proscribes recoveries from Group C and Group D employees and further proscribes recoveries in excess of payments made in excess of five years prior to the date of order of recovery. On both these counts, the impugned recoveries cannot sustain.

3. The only two circumstances in which the rigour of para 18 of Rafiq Masih does not apply are set out in the subsequent decisions in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh2 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala3. They are if, at the time when the excess payments were made, an undertaking was taken from the employee concerned, agreeing to pay back any excess payments if they were found to be in excess later, or where the employee concerned was herself, or himself, complicit in ensuring that excess payments were made to her, or him. Neither of these circumstances applies.

4. We have granted relief in similar circumstances, inter alia, in National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj v. K.N. Sati4 and Union of India v. Heera Lal Kundra5.

5. Following the said decisions, the impugned order dated 9 August 2024 is quashed and set aside.

6. The amount recovered from the petitioners, if any, would be repaid to them within a period of four weeks from today, failing which

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 2 (2016) 14 SCC 267 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 4 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1179 5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 210

the amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J DECEMBER 9, 2025/AR