Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhvir Singh Dalal vs Managing Director Dhbvn And Others on 10 November, 2025

                                          1

CWP-9641--2018




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

222
                                               CWP-9641-2018
                                               Date of decision: 10.11.2025
Sukhvir Singh Dalal
                                                                 .....Petitioner

                                     VERSUS

Managing Director DHBVN and others
                                                                .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present :    Mr. Amarjeet Beniwal, Advocate
                                   Advocates for the petitioner.

             Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Himanshu Gupta,
             Advocate for the respondents.

             ****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

to quash the impugned re-fixation re fixation of pay dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P-3)

and the consequential recovery order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P P-4)

directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹57,537/-,, with a further

prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release all retiral

benefits as per the last pay drawn by the petitioner prior to the impugned re-

fixation.

2. Briefly the facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed

as a Junior Draftsman with the respondent respondent-Department Department on 11.08.1981 and

1 of 8

CWP-9641--2018

rose to the post of Chief Draftsman before retiring on 30.11.2017 after

rendering over 36 years of unblemished service. Upon his promotion to the

post of CHD w.e.f. 19.06.2015, his pay was fixed in accordance with the

Government of Haryana letter dated 28.08.2014, adopted by the DHBVN.

The petitioner drew this this pay until his retirement. After retirement, the

respondents issued the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P P-3)

3) re-

fixing his pay w.e.f. 01.07.2015, alleging that an increment was erroneously

granted upon promotion, contrary to Government Order dat dated ed 08.04.2010.

Consequently, vide order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P P-4),

4), a recovery of

₹57,537/- was ordered from his retiral benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2017 after rendering unblemished

service for over 36 years. It is contended that the impugned re re-fixation fixation of

pay and the consequential recovery of ₹57,537/ ₹57,537/- from his retiral benefits

were effected without any notice or opportunity of hearing, in violation of

the principles nciples of natural justice. He further submits that that the recovery is

impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

334,, which categorically State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334

bars recovery from retired employees. It is further asserted that the petitioner

never gave any valid undertaking to authorize such recovery, and the alleged

undertakings, even if existent, are general in nature or obtained under duress

post-retirement, retirement, and cannot override the equitable prote protection ction afforded to

retirees.

2 of 8

CWP-9641--2018

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

pay of the petitioner was erroneously fixed by granting an inadmissible

increment upon promotion, as per Government Order dated 08.04.2010. He

submits that the petitioner had given specific undertakings, including one

post-retirement retirement on 06.04.2018 (Annexure R R-3),

3), agreeing unconditionally to

the recovery of any excess payment. Placing heavy reliance on the judgment

in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC

267,, he contends that where an undertaking is given, the employee is bound

by it and the principles in Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with their able assistance.

6. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) (supra),, where it was held that

recovery from retired employees is impermissible. The Court while

emphasizing that such recovery recovery causes undue hardship and is inequitable

laid down the following principles:

"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class Class-III and Class-IV 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 employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued...."

3 of 8

CWP-9641--2018

7. The learned counsel for the respondents, rely on Jagdev Singh

(supra),, where recovery was permitted based on an undertaking given by the

employee at the time of opting for revised pay scales. The Court observed:

"The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking."

8. The question is whether the undertakings in this case justifies

departure from Rafiq Masih(supra).. The petitioner gave general

undertakings during pay revisions in 2006 and 2016, and a specific

undertaking post-retirement post retirement on 06.04.2018. The excess payment related to

the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.11.2017, and the re re-fixation fixation was done in

March 2018, after retirement.

9. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam

abu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 while speaking through Babu

Justice N.P Singh observed that,

"11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330 330-480 480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commis Commission sion w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560, 560, but as they have received the scale of Rs. 330-560 560 since 1973, due to no fault of theirs, and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 wit withh effect from 1.1.1973, it should only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. them Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners,

4 of 8

CWP-9641--2018

due to the he fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same.""

10. In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 475,, a

Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while speaking though

Justice B.N. Agrawal observed that, that

"27. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was no paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and

(b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong rong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, quity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly ongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994(2) SCT 296 : [1994]2 SCC 521; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, 1996(4) SCT 57 : [1996]4 SCC 416; V. Ganga Ram v. Regional Jt., Jt.

Director, 1997(3) SCT 72 : [1997]6 SCC 139; Col. B.J. Akkara [Retd.] v. Government of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 709; Purshottam Lal Das & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2006(4) SCT 537 : [2006]11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Anr., 2006(4) 006(4) SCT 570 : [2006]8 SCC 647 and Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur & Anr., [2000] 10 SCC 99.

5 of 8

CWP-9641--2018

28. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on theireir part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bonafide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligenegligence nce and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-

appellants teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar iar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers teachers should be made."

The Court further noted that relief against recovery is granted in

equity to avoid hardship, especially when employees are retired or nearing

retirement.

11. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Yogeshwar Prasad v. National Institute of Education Planning and

Administra Administration, (2010) 14 SCC 323,, while speaking through Justice Dalveer

Bhandari made the following observation,

"39. In view of a series of judgments of this Court, the appellants are otherwise entitled to the revised pay scale. The amount paid to the appellant appellants-employees employees pursuant to the grant of higher pay scale should not be recovered unless it was a case of mis-representation representation or fraud.

fraud."

6 of 8

CWP-9641--2018

12. Further a Two Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, 2009(2) S.C.T. 161 :

SCC, while speaking through Justice Tarun 2009(2) R.A.J. 388 : (2009) 3 SCC,

Chatterjee observed that,

"10......It is not needed for this Court to verify the veracity of the statements made by the parties. If at all the respondent entered the second d date of birth at a subsequent period of time, the authorities concerned should have detected it and there should have been a detailed enquiry to determine whether the respondent was responsible for the same. It has been held in a catena of judicial pronouncements uncements that even if by mistake, higher pay scale was given to the employee, without there being misrepresentation or fraud, no recovery can be effected from the retiral dues in the monetary benefit available to the employee......"

13. In the present case, the respondents admit that the excess

payment was due to an "inadvertent" error on their part, with no allegation

of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner. The undertakings from 2006

and 2016 are general in nature, and the specific undertaking dated date

06.04.2018 was obtained post-retirement, post retirement, when the petitioner was awaiting

his retiral benefits. This undertaking cannot be considered voluntary and is

vitiated by duress.

14. Moreover, the impugned re-fixation fixation was done without any

notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The

petitioner, being a retiree, was entitled to a fair chance to represent his case

before any adverse order was passed.

7 of 8