Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hariram Meena vs Jvvnl Jodhpur And Ors ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:49067]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8861/2015
Hariram Meena son of Shri Purnaram Meena, aged 61 years,
Resident of Ward No. 15, Near the house of Shri Jainarayan
Punia, Sadulpur, District Churu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its' Chairman
cum Managing Director, New Power House Road, Jodhpur
2. Chief Engineer (JD-Z), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Jodhpur
3. Superintending Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Churu
4. Assistant Engineer (Rural), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Sadulpur, District Churu
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
11/11/2025
1. By way of filing this S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the
legality of the impugned letters dated 31.03.2015 and
07.07.2014 issued by the officials of Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, whereby an amount of Rs. 2,08,517/- has
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (2 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
been deducted from the petitioner's gratuity towards alleged
excess payment on account of wrong pay fixation. The
grievance of the petitioner is that such recovery is wholly
arbitrary and illegal, and therefore, the petitioner seeks
quashing of the impugned communications and a direction to
the respondent-authorities to release the deducted gratuity
amount along with applicable interest.
2. That the petitioner, a permanent resident of District Churu,
was appointed on muster-roll basis in the respondent
department on 01.01.1972 and his services were thereafter
converted from casual labour to Work-Charged Helper-II vide
Order dated 10.04.1973, joining as Helper-II in the pay scale
of 240-5-280-7-378 w.e.f. 01.04.1974; his pay was
subsequently fixed in the revised pay scales of Rs. 400-6-
430-10-550-15-640 w.e.f. 01.04.1980 and 01.04.1983, and
he was later granted the benefit of the revised pay scale of
1987 w.e.f. 01.09.1986 in the scale of Rs. 730-10-850-15-
1000-20-1200-25-1250 with his pay fixed at Rs. 970/-; the
petitioner was thereafter promoted to Helper-I vide Order
dated 05.11.1988 in the pay scale of 820-10-850-15-1000-
20-1200-25-1400-30-1520 with his pay fixed at Rs. 1000/-
as on 18.11.1988, and his pay was later fixed in the revised
State pay scale of Rs. 800-1205 at Rs. 1190/- as on
27.05.1990, followed by benefit of revised fixation for AGI
due to the strike period of May-July 1992; upon completion
of 18 years of service, he was granted selection grade vide
Order dated 14.10.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (3 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
1150-25-1400-30-1640-40-1680 w.e.f. 01.04.1992 with his
pay fixed at Rs. 1,350/-, and it was directed that further
fixation on promotion to Grade-II would not be allowed;
later, based on the recommendation of a committee, he was
promoted to S.S.A.-II vide Order dated 30.09.1994 in the
pay scale of Rs. 1025-25-1100-30-1640-40-1800 with pay
fixed at Rs. 1,400/- as on 01.04.1992 and effective from
11.10.1994, and was thereafter promoted to S.S.A.-I vide
Order dated 23.10.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-
6000; on further recommendation of the selection
committee, he was promoted to S.S.O.-I vide Order dated
20.10.2012 in PB-1 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.
2800/-, later modified vide Order dated 02.01.2013 granting
Grade Pay of Rs. 3200/- applicable to technical employees,
and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 16,600/- as on
29.10.2012; he was also extended the benefit of the 6th Pay
Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with his pay fixed at Rs.
12,820/- and thereafter at Rs. 18,000/- as on 01.07.2013;
after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from
the post of S.S.O.-I on 31.07.2014, and his retiral benefits
were released except that he later came to know that Rs.
2,08,517/- had been deducted from his gratuity towards
alleged excess salary paid to him due to wrong pay fixation
from 1988-89 till 2014-15, as reflected in the Gratuity
Payment Order dated 19.12.2014; the petitioner thereafter
repeatedly approached the authorities and also sought
information under the RTI Act, whereupon vide
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (4 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
communication dated 31.03.2015, he was informed that the
deduction had been made pursuant to the Accounts Officer's
letter dated 07.07.2014 and on the ground that after
regularization of the strike period, his pay had been wrongly
fixed at Rs. 970/- instead of Rs. 955/- as on 01.09.1986; the
respondents also supplied him, under RTI, copies of service
books of similarly situated employees, namely Jagdish
Prasad and Brij Bhan Saini, showing their pay fixation at Rs.
970/- and Rs. 985/- respectively as on 01.09.1986; and the
petitioner, asserting that any excess payment occurred due
to departmental actions and that recovery could not be made
from his gratuity without affording him an opportunity of
hearing, has now approached this Court challenging the
deduction of the said amount as well as the impugned letters
dated 31.03.2015 and 07.07.2014.
3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and upon meticulous
perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the core controversy stands squarely
covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Etc. vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Etc., Civil Appeal No.
11527/2014, decided on 18.12.2014. For ready reference,
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"4. The issue that we have been required to adjudicate is, whether all
the private respondents, against whom an order of recovery (of the
excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the
reimbursement of the same to the employer. For the applicability of the
instant order, and the conclusions recorded by us hereinafter, the
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (5 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
ingredients depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs are essentially
indispensable.
5. Merely on account of the fact, that the release of these monetary
benefits was based on a mistaken belief at the hands of the employer,
and further, because the employees had no role in the determination of
the employer, could it be legally feasible, for the private respondents to
assert, that they should be exempted from refunding the excess
amount received by them? Insofar as the above issue is concerned, it is
necessary to keep in mind, that the following reference was made by a
Division Bench of two Judges of this Court, for consideration by a larger
Bench:
"In view of an apparent difference of views expressed on the one
hand in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma vs. State of Haryana
(1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18; and on the other hand in Chandi Prasad
Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC
417, we are of the view that the remaining special leave petitions
should be placed before a Bench of Three Judges. The Registry is
accordingly directed to place the file of the remaining special
leave petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for
taking instructions for the constitution of a Bench of three
Judges, to adjudicate upon the present controversy."
(emphasis is ours)
The aforesaid reference was answered by a Division Bench of three
Judges on 8.7.2014. While disposing of the reference, the three-
Judge Division Bench, recorded the following observations in paragraph
7:
"7. In our considered view, the observations made by the Court
not to recover the excess amount paid to the appellant-therein
were in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India which vest the power in this Court to
pass equitable orders in the ends of justice."
(emphasis is ours)
Having recorded the above observations, the reference was answered
as under:
"12. Therefore, in our opinion, the decisions of the Court based
on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the
Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same
grounds of reasoning and thus in view of the aforesaid
discussion, there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first
two judgments and the latter judgment.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (6 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
13. In that view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that reference was unnecessary. Therefore, without answering
the reference, we send back the matters to the Division Bench for
its appropriate disposal."
6. In view of the conclusions extracted hereinabove, it will be our
endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein
employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the
hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In
our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee
merely on account of the fact, that he was not an accessory to the
mistake committed by the employer; or merely because the employee
did not furnish any factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof
the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than
what was rightfully due to him; or for that matter, merely because the
excessive payment was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud
or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee.
7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we
are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of
monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be
interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship
of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the
employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be
called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover
the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above
consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made
to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery,
even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice
in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was
iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at
the hands of this Court.
8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of
the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious
detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue
resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is
assured to the citizens of India, even in the preamble of the
Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the
employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on
the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the
concerned employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more
improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (7 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and
arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's
right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer
to recover.
9. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having
many dimensions. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality, can be
found in Articles 14 to 18, contained in Part III of the Constitution of
India, dealing with "Fundamental Rights". These Articles of the
Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws; also disallow, discrimination with the object of
achieving equality, in matters of employment; abolish untouchability, to
upgrade the social status of an ostracized section of the society; and
extinguish titles, to scale down the status of a section of the society,
with such appellations. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality, can
also be found in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 contained in Part IV of
the Constitution of India, dealing with the "Directive Principles of State
Policy". These Articles of the Constitution of India contain a mandate to
the State requiring it to assure a social order providing justice - social,
economic and political, by inter alia minimizing monetary inequalities,
and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood, and by
providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard
of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections.
10. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good
conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has
to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State,
ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it
is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery
would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more
unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover
the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would
have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be
permissible in law. Orders passed in given situations repeatedly, even
in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, will disclose the parameters of the realm of an
action of recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which
would breach the obligations of the State, to citizens of this country,
and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. For the above determination, we shall refer to some precedents of
this Court wherein the question of recovery of the excess amount paid
to employees, came up for consideration, and this Court disallowed the
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (8 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
same. These are situations, in which High Courts all over the country,
repeatedly and regularly set aside orders of recovery made on the
expressed parameters.
(i). Reference may first of all be made to the decision in Syed Abdul
Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, wherein this Court recorded
the following observation in paragraph 58:
"58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because
of any right in the employees, but in equity, 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 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 Supp. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu
Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India v. M.
Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416, V. Ganga Ram v. Director, (1997) 6
SCC 139, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, (2006) 11
SCC 709, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, (2006) 11 SCC
492, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647
and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bahadur, (2000) 10 SCC 99."
(emphasis is ours)
First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this Court in its
judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir's case (supra) recognized, that the issue
of recovery revolved on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the
subject of the action being iniquitous, it was sought to be concluded,
that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short
period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same.
Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time,
it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an
action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because
the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the
instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an
employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received
wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government
employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to
be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (9 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family.
Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only
to the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their
medical requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on the
above consideration, we are of the view, that if the mistake of making a
wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the
employer to recover the same. However, if the payment is made for a
period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the
employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and
arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the
employee. In this context, reference may also be made to the decision
rendered by this Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994)
2 SCC 521, wherein this Court observed as under:
"11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled
only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 in terms of the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1,
1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled
to the pay scale of Rs 330-560 but as they have received the
scale of Rs 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that
scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January
1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any
excess amount which has already been paid to them.
Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover
or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the
fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way
responsible for the same."
(emphasis is ours)
It is apparent, that in Shyam Babu Verma's case (supra), the higher
payscale commenced to be paid erroneously in 1973. The same was
sought to be recovered in 1984, i.e., after a period of 11 years. In the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court felt that the recovery after several
years of the implementation of the pay-scale would not be just and
proper. We therefore hereby hold, recovery of excess payments
discovered after five years would be iniquitous and arbitrary, and as
such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(ii). Examining a similar proposition, this Court in Col. B.J. Akkara v.
Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, observed as under:
"28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is
granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but
in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the
employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (10 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the
lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he
receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess
payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing
that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the
excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is
granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge
that the payment received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a
short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against
recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion,
courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case
refuse to grant such relief against recovery."
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in Col. B.J.
Akkara's case (supra) reveals a reiteration of the legal position recorded
in the earlier judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as, it was
again affirmed, that the right to recover would be sustainable so long
as the same was not iniquitous or arbitrary. In the observation
extracted above, this Court also recorded, that recovery from
employees in lower rung of service, would result in extreme hardship to
them. The apparent explanation for the aforesaid conclusion is, that
employees in lower rung of service would spend their entire earnings in
the upkeep and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment is
allowed to be recovered from them, it would cause them far more
hardship, than the reciprocal gains to the employer. We are therefore
satisfied in concluding, that such recovery from employees belonging to
the lower rungs (i.e., Class-III and Class-IV - sometimes denoted as
Group 'C' and Group 'D') of service, should not be subjected to the
ordeal of any recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of
receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them. Such recovery
would be iniquitous and arbitrary and therefore would also breach the
mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(iii). This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (supra) held as
follows:
"59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the
appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or
fraud on their 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,
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (11 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
admitted that it was a bona fide 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, negligence and carelessness of the officials
concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that
majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the
verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant
teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that
has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be
made."
(emphasis is ours)
Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether
on the touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the
judgment reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which
would make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is
apparent from the conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul Qadir's case
(supra), that recovery of excess payments, made from employees who
have retired from service, or are close to their retirement, would entail
extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary gains by the
employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a retired employee or an
employee about to retire, is a class apart from those who have
sufficient service to their credit, before their retirement. Needless to
mention, that at retirement, an employee is past his youth, his needs
are far in excess of what they were when he was younger. Despite that,
his earnings have substantially dwindled (or would substantially be
reduced on his retirement). Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in
mind, we are satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary,
if it is sought to be made after the date of retirement, or soon before
retirement.
A period within one year from the date of superannuation, in our
considered view, should be accepted as the period during which the
recovery should be treated as iniquitous. Therefore, it would be justified
to treat an order of recovery, on account of wrongful payment made to
an employee, as arbitrary, if the recovery is sought to be made after
the employee's retirement, or within one year of the date of his
retirement on superannuation.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (12 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
(iv). Last of all, reference may be made to the decision in Sahib Ram
Verma v. Union of India, (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18, wherein it was
concluded as under:
"4. Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that the previous scale of Rs 220-550 to which the
appellant was entitled became Rs 700-1600 since the appellant
had been granted that scale of pay in relaxation of the
educational qualification. The High Court was, therefore, not right
in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any force in this
contention. It is seen that the Government in consultation with
the University Grants Commission had revised the pay scale of a
Librarian working in the colleges to Rs 700-1600 but they insisted
upon the minimum educational qualification of first or second
class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. plus a first or second class B.Lib.
Science or a Diploma in Library Science. The relaxation given was
only as regards obtaining first or second class in the prescribed
educational qualification but not relaxation in the educational
qualification itself.
5 . Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required
educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant
would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in
granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the
appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However,
it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the
appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to
him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which
the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the
circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered
from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work
would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants
Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to
costs."
(emphasis is ours)
It would be pertinent to mention, that Librarians were equated with
Lecturers, for the grant of the pay scale of Rs.700-1600. The above pay
parity would extend to Librarians, subject to the condition that they
possessed the prescribed minimum educational qualification (first or
second class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. plus a first or second class B.Lib.
Science or a Diploma in Library Science, the degree of M.Lib. Science
being a preferential qualification). For those Librarians appointed prior
to 3.12.1972, the educational qualifications were relaxed. In Sahib Ram
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (13 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
Verma's case (supra), a mistake was committed by wrongly extending
to the appellants the revised pay scale, by relaxing the prescribed
educational qualifications, even though the concerned appellants were
ineligible for the same. The concerned appellants were held not eligible
for the higher scale, by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal
work". This Court, in the above circumstances, did not allow the
recovery of the excess payment. This was apparently done because this
Court felt that the employees were entitled to wages, for the post
against which they had discharged their duties. In the above view of
the matter, we are of the opinion, that it would be iniquitous and
arbitrary for an employer to require an employee to refund the wages
of a higher post, against which he had wrongfully been permitted to
work, though he should have rightfully been required to work against
an inferior post.
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.
(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.
13. We are informed by the learned counsel representing the appellant-
State of Punjab, that all the cases in this bunch of appeals, would
undisputedly fall within the first four categories delineated hereinabove.
In the appeals referred to above, therefore, the impugned orders
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (quashing the order of
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (14 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
recovery), shall be deemed to have been upheld, for the reasons
recorded above.
14. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms."
5. The Apex Court has categorically delineated the
circumstances under which recovery of alleged excess
payments from employees, particularly from retired Class III
and Class IV employees, stands prohibited on the touchstone
of equity, fairness, and reasonableness in administrative
action. The judicially recognized principle that recoveries
cannot be effected from employees who are neither at fault
nor beneficiaries of any misrepresentation, and where the
over-payment is attributable solely to an inadvertent or bona
fide administrative mistake, directly governs the present
factual matrix.
6. In the instant case, the undisputed factual position emerging
from the record is that the petitioner had an uninterrupted
service career spanning over four decades and was granted
successive pay revisions, increments, and promotions strictly
through departmental orders, all of which were duly
recorded in his service book. At no stage has the respondent
department alleged, much less established, that the
petitioner procured any financial benefit by resorting to
misrepresentation, concealment, falsification of service
particulars, or any form of inducement. The impugned
recovery has been justified solely on the premise that the
petitioner's pay was erroneously fixed at Rs. 970/- instead of
Rs. 955/- as on 01.09.1986, which, according to the
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (15 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
respondents, purportedly led to cumulative excess payments
from 1988-89 to 2014-15.
7. However, no material has been placed before this Court to
indicate that the respondents ever initiated any disciplinary,
administrative, or vigilance inquiry against the concerned
officials entrusted with the responsibility of pay fixation. The
absence of any inquiry, report, or findings attributing
negligence or dereliction to the responsible officers strongly
indicates that the alleged excess payment emanated not
from any fault attributable to the petitioner but from an
unrectified computational error committed internally by the
department.
8. Significantly, the respondents themselves furnished, under
the Right to Information Act, the service books of similarly
situated employees such as Shri Jagdish Prasad and Shri Brij
Bhan Saini, whose pay, too, had been fixed at Rs. 970/- and
Rs. 985/- respectively as on 01.09.1986, thereby reinforcing
the inference that the fixation adopted in the petitioner's
case was neither exceptional nor irregular at the relevant
time. Yet, the department has failed to demonstrate why,
despite comparable pay fixation in analogous cases, recovery
has been selectively pursued against the petitioner alone.
The record is conspicuously silent on whether any review,
audit objection, or internal scrutiny discovered the alleged
error, or whether the decision to recover was taken
mechanically without assessing its legality or propriety in
light of binding judicial precedents.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (16 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
9. Recovery of such magnitude, imposed after the passage of
more than twenty-five years and initiated only upon the
petitioner's retirement, is ex facie arbitrary and shocks the
conscience of the Court. The action is further vitiated as the
respondents have not placed on record any
contemporaneous correspondence, audit direction, or
departmental communication that might justify such belated
recovery. The admitted position that no misrepresentation
was ever attributed to the petitioner, coupled with the total
absence of any inquiry against officials who allegedly
committed the error, renders the impugned action wholly
unsustainable.
10. In light of the settled legal position in Rafiq Masih
(supra), the peculiar facts obtaining in this case, and the
absence of any cogent material to justify the recovery, this
Court is of the firm view that the deduction of Rs. 2,08,517/-
from the petitioner's gratuity is illegal, arbitrary, and
violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner,
having already superannuated and dependent on retiral dues
for subsistence, cannot be burdened with the consequences
of an error exclusively attributable to the departmental
authorities. The respondents are, therefore, under a legal
obligation to refund the recovered amount.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The
impugned communications dated 31.03.2015 and
07.07.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the sum
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49067] (17 of 17) [CW-8861/2015]
of Rs. 2,08,517/- deducted from his gratuity, along with 6%
interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of this
order. No further recovery shall be effected from the
petitioner on the basis of the alleged erroneous fixation.
12. In view of the above adjudication, the stay application
and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:01:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
