Allahabad High Court

2. Shri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 placed reliance upon the letter dated 15.03.2023 written by the petitioner himself to the Senior Treasury Officer, Amroha in which an undertaking has been given by the petitioner to recover an excess amount i.e., sum of Rs.3,48,312/- which was illegally received by the petitioner by way of dearness allowance. It is further informed by Shri N.K Pandey, learned counsel that entire recovery has already been made from the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others vs. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006 decided on 29.07.2016.

3. In this view of the matter, it is argued that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by him in the present writ petition.

4. In response to the same, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010) reported in 2022 Supreme(SC) 387 decided on 02.05.2022 and in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014) reported in 2014 Supreme(SC) 909.

5. When a specific query has been made by the Court that whether in the aforesaid judgment, there is any findings has been recorded regarding the undertaking given by the petitioner, the recovery could be made or not, it is argued that there is no such law has been laid down in the aforesaid judgment.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of record, it is clear that the recovery has been sought against the 2 WRIA No. 18917 of 2025 petitioner pursuant to the undertaking given by the petitioner vide letter dated 15.03.2023. The aforesaid letter reads as follows:- "सेवा में , विरष्ठ कोषािधकारी महोदय िजला - अमरोहा िवषय - पेंशन में अिधक डी० ए० प्राप्त होने पर उसके वापस होने के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय - िनवेदन इस प्रकार है की प्राथीर् BT No. 1661 व पी०सी०ओ०-4944 से स्वगीर्य पत्नी की पािरवािरक पेंशन प्राप्त कर रहा है । प्राथीर् को आपके पत्र - पत्रांक 1341 । कोश०। बेिसक पेंशन। 2022-23 िदनांक 24.2.2023 के अनुसार अवगत कराया गया िक मुझे अिधक डी०ए० प्राप्त हो गया है । आपके पत्रानुसार 348312=00 कु ल रुपये प्राप्त हुये है। अतः आपसे िनवेदन है की मेरी स्वगीर्य पत्नी श्रीमती सुषमा कु मारी गुप्ता की पािरवािरक पेंशन से प्रत्येक माह 10000=00 (दस हजार रुपये मात्र) की कटौती करके उपरोक्त प्राप्त अिधक डी०ए० की धनरािश प्राप्त कर ली जाये। िदनांक – 15-03-2023 प्राथीर् हरीश चन्द्र हरीश चन्द्र गुप्ता पित स्व० सुषमा कु मारी गुप्ता ग्रामवडा० - सैदनगली िजला - अमरोहा मो० - 8057181600"

8. From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the sum of Rs.3,48,312/- has been excess paid to the petitioner towards dearness allowance. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, the aforesaid letter has been written by him with the request to deduct Rs.10,000/- per month from the family pension.

9. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the respondent started deducting sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the family pension to the petitioner. As per prayer made in the writ petition up to September, 2025, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner.

10. At this point of time i.e., after more than two and half years, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to refund the deducted amount.

11. In the case of Jagdev Singh (Supra) it has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court where an undertaking has been given by the employee concerned. Paragraph nos.9 to 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at 3 WRIA No. 18917 of 2025 the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.

10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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." (emphasis supplied).

11. 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."

12. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear that undertaking has been given by the petitioner before the authorities to refund the excess amount paid to to him towards dearness allowance. Pursuant to the aforesaid undertaking, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner.

13. Fact regarding undertaking given by the petitioner before the authorities has not been denied by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

14. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. Writ petition devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. (Prakash Padia,J.) December 16, 2025 Swati

2. Shri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 placed reliance upon the letter dated 15.03.2023 written by the petitioner himself to the Senior Treasury Officer, Amroha in which an undertaking has been given by the petitioner to recover an excess amount i.e., sum of Rs.3,48,312/- which was illegally received by the petitioner by way of dearness allowance. It is further informed by Shri N.K Pandey, learned counsel that entire recovery has already been made from the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others vs. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006 decided on 29.07.2016.

3. In this view of the matter, it is argued that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by him in the present writ petition.

4. In response to the same, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010) reported in 2022 Supreme(SC) 387 decided on 02.05.2022 and in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014) reported in 2014 Supreme(SC) 909.

5. When a specific query has been made by the Court that whether in the aforesaid judgment, there is any findings has been recorded regarding the undertaking given by the petitioner, the recovery could be made or not, it is argued that there is no such law has been laid down in the aforesaid judgment.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of record, it is clear that the recovery has been sought against the 2 WRIA No. 18917 of 2025 petitioner pursuant to the undertaking given by the petitioner vide letter dated 15.03.2023. The aforesaid letter reads as follows:- "सेवा में , विरष्ठ कोषािधकारी महोदय िजला - अमरोहा िवषय - पेंशन में अिधक डी० ए० प्राप्त होने पर उसके वापस होने के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय - िनवेदन इस प्रकार है की प्राथीर् BT No. 1661 व पी०सी०ओ०-4944 से स्वगीर्य पत्नी की पािरवािरक पेंशन प्राप्त कर रहा है । प्राथीर् को आपके पत्र - पत्रांक 1341 । कोश०। बेिसक पेंशन। 2022-23 िदनांक 24.2.2023 के अनुसार अवगत कराया गया िक मुझे अिधक डी०ए० प्राप्त हो गया है । आपके पत्रानुसार 348312=00 कु ल रुपये प्राप्त हुये है। अतः आपसे िनवेदन है की मेरी स्वगीर्य पत्नी श्रीमती सुषमा कु मारी गुप्ता की पािरवािरक पेंशन से प्रत्येक माह 10000=00 (दस हजार रुपये मात्र) की कटौती करके उपरोक्त प्राप्त अिधक डी०ए० की धनरािश प्राप्त कर ली जाये। िदनांक – 15-03-2023 प्राथीर् हरीश चन्द्र हरीश चन्द्र गुप्ता पित स्व० सुषमा कु मारी गुप्ता ग्रामवडा० - सैदनगली िजला - अमरोहा मो० - 8057181600"

8. From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the sum of Rs.3,48,312/- has been excess paid to the petitioner towards dearness allowance. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, the aforesaid letter has been written by him with the request to deduct Rs.10,000/- per month from the family pension.

9. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the respondent started deducting sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the family pension to the petitioner. As per prayer made in the writ petition up to September, 2025, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner.

10. At this point of time i.e., after more than two and half years, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to refund the deducted amount.

11. In the case of Jagdev Singh (Supra) it has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court where an undertaking has been given by the employee concerned. Paragraph nos.9 to 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at 3 WRIA No. 18917 of 2025 the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.

10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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." (emphasis supplied).

11. 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."

12. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear that undertaking has been given by the petitioner before the authorities to refund the excess amount paid to to him towards dearness allowance. Pursuant to the aforesaid undertaking, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner.

13. Fact regarding undertaking given by the petitioner before the authorities has not been denied by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

14. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. Writ petition devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. (Prakash Padia,J.) December 16, 2025 Swati