[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Gulvir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 19033/2025, CM APPL. 79264/2025 & CM APPL.
79265/2025
GULVIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Mr. Abhay
Singh, Mr. Saurabh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC
with Mr. Sambhav Sharma, GP and Ms.
Aashna Mehra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 16.12.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. With consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of
without calling for any response.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10 September 2025
whereby recovery of overpayment of salary allegedly since
01.01.2006 i.e., for over 19 years has been effected.
3. The order has been passed without any show cause notice to the
petitioner and, therefore, violates the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India1.
(1994) 6 SCC 154
4. Besides the recovery is in the teeth of clauses (i) and (iii) of
para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.
Rafiq Masih2, which prohibit recovery more than five years after the
alleged excess payment and prohibits recovery from Group C and
Group D employees. For ready reference, para 18 of Rafiq Masih may
be reproduced, thus:
"18. 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III
and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of five years,
before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher
post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should
have rightfully been required to work against an inferior
post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent,
as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the
employer's right to recover.
5. Mr. Bajpai, learned CGSC very fairly acknowledges this
2 (2015) 4 SCC 334
position.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10 September 2025 is
quashed and set aside. If any amounts have been recovered from the
petitioner, they shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of
four weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest at
the rate of 12% per annum till date of actual payment.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
DECEMBER 16, 2025/rjd
