Punjab-Haryana High Court
Resham Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 27 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CWP-7874-2021
Date of Decision : 27.11.2025
Resham Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
certiorari, quashing the impugned orders/letters dated 16.08.2019
(Annexure P-1) and 02.03.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner
has been directed to refund the excess amount of G.P. Fund after a
period of more than five years of his retirement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
joined the service as Ground Marker/Supervisor in the Department of
Sports, Punjab on 13.08.1975, which is a Class-IV (Group-D) post and
retired as such, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.03.2014.
He further submits that as the service record of the petitioner was
absolutely clean, no objection of any kind was ever raised by the
respondent-department and his pensionary benefits were released
well in time. He further submits that after a period of more than
1 of 4
five years of the retirement of the petitioner, the impugned orders/letters
dated 16.08.2019 and 02.03.2021 have been sent to the petitioner
seeking recovery from him alleging excess payment of G.P. Fund. He
further submits that since at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the
respondent-department had made the payment of G.P. Fund to him after
preparation of his case and fulfilling all the required performas
pertaining to final payment of G.P. Fund, therefore, no question of
excess payment arises after five years of his retirement. Even otherwise,
the respondent-department cannot make any recovery from the
petitioner after five years of his retirement. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Punjab and others Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others : 2015(1) S.C.T. 195.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while referring to
the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents,
submits that there was a mistake committed by the department while
determining the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and
consequently, he was given monetary benefits in excess of his
entitlement. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned
orders/letters dated 16.08.2019 and 02.03.2021 seeking recovery of
excess payment of G.P. Fund from the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service, on attaining
the age of superannuation, on 31.03.2014 and after a period of more
2 of 4
than five years of his retirement, the impugned orders/letters seeking
recovery of excess payment of G.P. Fund from the petitioner was issued
by the respondent-department on 16.08.2019 and 02.03.2021. The facts
and circumstances of the present case suggests that it was nowhere the
case of the respondent-department that there was any fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner to enure the benefit of
fetching excess payment, rather the same was being paid by the
respondent-department at its own at the time of releasing the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra)
has laid down circumstances where no recovery can be effected from an
employee despite excess payment. The circumstances enumerated in the
judgment are not conclusive. The circumstances where the Court has
categorically held that no recovery shall be effected are reproduced as
below :-
"12. 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 herein above, we
may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few
situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III
and Class-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 4
(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."
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view
that the case of the present petitioner, who was working against Class-
IV post, is squarely covered by the principles and parameters laid down
in Clauses (i) to (iii) and (v) of para 12 of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Rafiq Masih's case (Supra).
8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned orders/letters dated 16.08.2019 and 02.03.2021 seeking
recovery of excess payment of G.P. Fund from the petitioner is set aside.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
27.11.2025 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
